and why are they elected to office

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st....html?gusrc=rss

 

Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green.

 

Edit: I should say that that quote looks out of context. But the fact that he brought it up at all concerning this issue is pretty dense.

Another example of shining leadership from the great state of Alabama.

 

First, they refuse to remove segregationist language from their constitution.

 

Then, a state rep proposes banning public libraries from carrying books with a homosexual character in them.

 

Seriously, if any other country wants this waste of a state, thats fine. Can we hold an ebay auction maybe? Buyer pays shipping!

This is just unintelligent, backwards and discriminatory. If anything, banning the use of homosexual plots will make the subject even more taboo and thus more appealing. That Allen guy can f*** off until he meets up with reality somewhere down the road.

 

Although if you want to read something more positive: Supreme Court OKs same-sex marriage in Canada, and now it all depends on a vote in parliament.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...esex041209.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...iage041209.html

 

OK ... Here's one for you. Now that homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts, some companies are doing away with their benefits packages that include benefits for same sex "significant others". Thoughts?

OK ... Here's one for you.  Now that homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts, some companies are doing away with their benefits packages that include benefits for same sex "significant others". Thoughts?

Are they replacing it with same sex married spouse coverage?

Are they replacing it with same sex married spouse coverage?

Yes. That's the deal.

Yes.  That's the deal.

Then, I don't have a problem with it. I've said before that I have a bigger problem with "Common law spouses" than with "partners" of same sex marriage.

Then, I don't have a problem with it. I've said before that I have a bigger problem with "Common law spouses" than with "partners" of same sex marriage.

Cool. I'm going to wait for some more responses before I jump into a dialogue. I think it could get interesting.

Cool.  I'm going to wait for some more responses before I jump into a dialogue.  I think it could get interesting.

Looking to pick a fight?

Looking to pick a fight? 

Not at all. There's nothing wrong with some good conversation among friends.

Not at all.  There's nothing wrong with some good conversation among friends.

I'm NOT you're friend!

Offering health insurance to my husband and not my boy friend? Fine with me. As long as I can have my husband legally be my husband.

Offering health insurance to my husband and not my boy friend? Fine with me. As long as I can have my husband legally be my husband.

I agree with that.

That may be a first.

That may be a first. 

I was thinking the same thing. It must be the Holiday season.

 

My thinking on this .... and I may be totally off base here .... is that more couples would qualify for these benefits as things stood prior to the legalization of marriage, than ever would after the fact. So, in effect, the gays were able to take one step forward, but it cost them two steps back.

Us gaybos don't want special privileges. If I had a girlfriend, I wouldn't be able to insure her with most plans unless we got married. Assuming that I could marry my boyfriend, I would assume that the same rules apply.

 

Equal people = equal rights.

Us gaybos don't want special privileges. If I had a girlfriend, I wouldn't be able to insure her with most plans unless we got married. Assuming that I could marry my boyfriend, I would assume that the same rules apply.

 

Equal people = equal rights.

That's how I view it. This just makes it the same for everyone.

Well. I agree with you guys. Just asking what people thoughts were.

Well.  I agree with you guys.  Just asking what people thoughts were.

Not getting that fight you want, huh?

Not getting that fight you want, huh? 

Hell no!

and why are they elected to office

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st....html?gusrc=rss

 

 

 

Edit: I should say that that quote looks out of context.  But the fact that he brought it up at all concerning this issue is pretty dense.

I think the scariest part of this article is the fact that this jackass clearly has the support of Idiot President bush.

 

You got what you asked for, bush supporters, congratulations.

That being said, in areas where legal recognition of same sex unions is not available, ethical agencies who believe in equal rights for equal people should offer benefits to same sex couples in committed long term relationships.

As in all matters of public policy there are unintended consequences. Health Insurance is a tricky issue. Companies would like to avoid a situation where you could pick anyone and add them to your coverage. A single payer system would make all this so much easier. If we have a patchwork of states where same sex marriages are legal and some where it is not, companies will have to administer a patchwork of benefits packages. We could also face situations where a spouse has coverage, the employee is relocated, and does not.

You know what sucked most about the same sex marriage amendment in Michigan that passed? Beyond it passing, of course? It forces the state to basically violate every union contract providing same sex couple benefits starting on December 15th.

 

Everything has unintended consequences.