Equality for All

Campus Report ^ | June 20, 2008 | Melinda Zosh

[bs9021]

Equality for All

by: Melinda Zosh, June 20, 2008

Not all of the gay couples across America flocked to California to tie the knot on Tuesday. Some stayed in Washington, D.C. to lobby for health benefits.

Openly gay U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) spoke at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on June 10. Baker supports the Lieberman-Smith Bill, which would give rights to gay partners of federal employees, including her own partner of 12 years. And she is not alone.

“216,000 federal employees are denied benefits that others have such as health care and access…to medical leave,” said Winnie Stachelberg, Vice President for External Affairs at CAP. “We need to meet needs of gay and lesbian federal employees.”

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argued that gays’ needs include “equal treatment under law.”

“What does it say about us when a cat receives more benefits [than a gay partner]?” Albright told an audience of 75. “There are those who would prefer the old days when people had wooden teeth….People [need to be] willing to accept an idea whose time has come.”

Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), said he can name at least a dozen Republicans who support his bill. And like Albright, he said that the government needs to be “leading not following.”

“Healthcare is second only to salary. No one should be disadvantaged because of race, religion or sexual orientation,” said Smith. “Our objective as policymakers is to get more people covered; the biggest advantage is to enlarge the pools of insured people.”

Besides healthcare, Albright said that the government is losing valuable employees, because it doesn’t recognize gay partners’ needs.

“The goal is to make it possible for people to serve our country without impacting families,” Albright said...

[Dilbert San Diego]

Can I ask a question or make a comment on the debate about homosexual marriage/partnerships/benefits.

Marriage has certain benefits attached to it, because marriage has been seen as being good for society, good for the dependent children in the marriage, and good for the man and woman married to each other. There has been a societal consensus that marriage is good for society, and that certain benefits go to married couples and families.

There has been little if any discussion about how homosexual marriage, or homosexual unions, are a benefit to society. Is society better off if we have same-sex marriage and encourage that behavior? The issue is instead discussed in terms of alleged “rights” that are “denied” to same-sex couples. But the reason marriage has had benefits attached to it is because it was seen as beneficial to society. Does society benefit at all if homosexuals are “married”? Anyone can live together with any other person or persons of one’s choice. It doesn’t mean, however, that the government has an obligation to recognize any other grouping or give benefits to people based on these other arrangements because it gives benefits to traditional married couples.

Or does it? I would love to hear homosexual spokesmen tell us what the benefit to society is, rather than being P**ssed off that they are “denied” their “rights” because somebody else gets a benefit they don’t get.

[Sunshine Sister]

Gee I sure wish these compassionate democrats could feel the same way for conservatives.

[MrB]

The goal is the destruction of the traditional family,

and this is only one way to attack it,

by UNDEFINING (not REdefining) marriage.

[Smokin' Joe]

... the government is losing valuable employees, because it doesn’t recognize gay partners’ needs.

These people knew the rules when they hired on.

If they want to leave, they are free to do so.

Then maybe the people setting policy will be more interested in setting policy which favors traditional one man one woman raise a bunch of kids marriage and we can start getting this nation back on track.

You makes your choices, you pays your money.