Powered by TypePad

« Haditha Investigators "Derelict" | Main | Setting Priorities »

July 08, 2006

Comments

Redcoat

File this under,"be careful what you wish for...."

Jane

Sounds fair to me.

My former associate (now partner) is a lesbian. She was married in VT several years ago. When gay marriage became legal in MA, I implored, uh, begged, uh, insisted she get married in MA, so she could get health insurance from her partner. Her partner, a cardiologist is about to start a job in Connecticut. They may have to marry again there to keep those benefits.

We figure that before it is over, she will be married in all 50 states!

maryrose

When the benefits are offered does the main person on the insurance policy have to pay a family plan amount? If so then the single straight should have no payment or a minimal one. Civil unions are the answer and one person carrying the insurance for the two of them; unless they work for a company where individual benefits are better.One good thing about the National Guard is that upon retirement health insurance is available for the guardsmen and his spouse depending on the number of years served.

Robert Speirs

Include polyandrists and polygamists and everyone in the workplace could be married to each other. Think of the family plan savings!

Jane

>When the benefits are offered does the main person on the insurance policy have to pay a family plan amount?

Actually the benefits for married gays are not as good as the benefits for married straights (altho I'm sure it varies by employer). Amy is covered under Mary's health insurance as a spouse under a family plan, but the employer contribution is taxed as income to Mary.

Because federal, and (even some state benefits - don't ask me which ones) don't apply to gay marrieds, tax season is a bitch.

Syl

Now that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts companies that offer benefits to gay employees’ partners risk hearing cries of discrimination from unmarried straight couples.

Yeah. I'd be one of the bitchers.

Patton

I haven't had a chance to read the courts decision. Did they ever explain how you consummate a gay marriage??

Patton

I'd like to see a case where THREE people wanted to get married.

How could this court possible say the government is allowed to stop three people from getting married, but not two people.

How do you jump through those hoops. And if three, why not five, and why not siblings?

The court would have to jump through more hoops then the Hamdam decision to try to explain why those should be excluded.

Jane

The real benefit of the NY decision against gay marriage is that it pretty much closed the book on Courts being the body to handle this issue. I'm not convinced the MA Court did gays a big favor, except in MA where acceptance of that arrangement is now widespread and common. But in other places it is hard to distinguish whether the backlash is against the Court or the gays.


clarice

I think your last sentence is on the mark. If gays wanted to keep this a hot button never to be resolved issue, they couldn't pick a better way than to have the courts, not the legislatures, decide this (I.e., abortion).

Jane

I think the left wants to keep this as "a hot button never to be resolved issue". Most of the gays I know are conservatives. They hate that stuff. It sucks being painted as a victim, particularly when you are not one.

clarice

Actually, that's my experience as well. And I think it interesting that Andrew Sullivan who made such an ass of himself in 2004 over this issue has a residence in Massachusetts and has not availed himself of this opportunity. (I am surprised how many gays when asked really say they don't want to marry. It's purely sketchy, anecdotal information that I am relying on, but I do believe lesbians are less promiscuous and more inclined to want to establish permanent relations with their partners.)

Jane

Oh I think gays probably want to marry and have families - as much as anyone does. (And maybe in both cases, it is women who propel that notion.) I know Amy, wanted to make a committment which is why they did the VT thing. They were smart enough to contract for whatever they needed to contract for. They only remarried in MA for the health insurance, and it was an excuse to have a party.

Many gays are quite happy living in a straight world. They don't want to change the world to suit them, and they don't run around shoving their lifestyles down people's throats.

In MA we have a bit of reverse discrimination. When people find out Amy is married to a woman, she takes on a bit of celebrity status, because in MA it is cool to be friends with the gays. I tell her to milk that for all it is worth.

Frankly it reminds me of my generation of women. All the doors were opened for us, because we were such "poor wittle victims of big bad men". I thought that was hilarious back then too. And for gays like women, it all depends on what you make of it. Just being gay or female is a far cry from what is needed to "make it". Pity the ones who don't realize that.

clarice

You may be right, but running thru my list of gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances I find they tend to be more conservative and the men tend more often to promiscuity than the women.In fact, I recall reading recently a Sullivan defense of that wandering gay tendency.

But all in all, they come in every stripe and hue and at least in D.C. have no barriers to success. Proportionally--and this is not well known--we have more homosexuals than SF and many are in high political and business circles. IN NY they are doing very well in financial circles as well.

richard mcenroe

And of course it now makes more financial sense for companies to move out of Massachusetts to avoid incurring these additional 'social costs'...

Jane

Clarice,

( I use the term "gays" collectively - for people of both sexes. I think you are probably right about women wanting more committment.)

>we have more homosexuals than SF and many are in high political and business circles. IN NY they are doing very well in financial circles as well.


Here too. Which is why the whole marriage thing will morph on its own. As in most things, business will lead the way. You want to hire the best employees, you accomodate that. And if you find out the cardiologist who just saved your life happens to be a lesbian, well you get over your prejudice very quickly. And that is how it should be.

Frankly, if I were gay and interested in committment, I'd want to call it something besides "marriage" given the percentage of failure in that institution. And while the prohibition on marriage screws gays out of some rights, there are some benfits. For example, if Mary dies, Amy can't be forced to pay off her student loans. And that's a hell of a lot more money than she would ever collect in social security benefits.

Jane

>And of course it now makes more financial sense for companies to move out of Massachusetts to avoid incurring these additional 'social costs'...

That may be the best argument against gay marriage. If you extend benefits to 10% of the population who never had benefits, you might have to change what benefits are given to everyone.

As a single person, I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

clarice

Good points!

Anonymous Liberal

TM,

What makes you think this was an "unintended consequence"? It seems like a natural and logical consequence of gay marriage being legal, and I think most gay people would gladly trade the right to domestic partner status for the right to marry.

In fact, Andrew Sullivan applauded this move in a post today. Which makes this comment by Clarice a little strange:

Actually, that's my experience as well. And I think it interesting that Andrew Sullivan who made such an ass of himself in 2004 over this issue has a residence in Massachusetts and has not availed himself of this opportunity.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame