http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm

 

Wino, do you know how many gay marriages involve one partner staying at home and the other in the work force? I was thinking about health insurance benefits and other types like that and wonder if this is more a principle than a practical matter.

 

I am not saying that this isn't important, or that fair and just calls for similar benefits for similar humans in similar situations, but I'm curious.

Not everyone has health insurance available to them in the workforce. I can't afford my health insurance here so I go without.

 

Some people don't or can't work. Some people choose not to. That's not the point though. In this case, its the loss of a benefit to state workers. In many cases, a lot of these talented people went to work for the state specifically because this kind of benefit was offered.

Not everyone has health insurance available to them in the workforce. I can't afford my health insurance here so I go without.

 

Some people don't or can't work. Some people choose not to. That's not the point though. In this case, its the loss of a benefit to state workers. In many cases, a lot of these talented people went to work for the state specifically because this kind of benefit was offered.

 

Those same people who are working at companies that do not offer health insurance are also doing without, possibly their whole family.

 

Why not work towards universal coverage so that all Americans have access?

Those same people who are working at companies that do not offer health insurance are also doing without, possibly their whole family.

 

Why not work towards universal coverage so that all Americans have access?

 

 

Haven't we been over this ground before?

Haven't we been over this ground before?

 

Yes, but this time it was a sideroad that led there.

 

Small business (the ones not moving to China) has the ardest time getting affordable health care for their employees. The rates are outragous and one employee can sink your rates. Small business is our best hedge against globalization.

Ya know I don't really know which way I swing (No pun intended ) on this issue of gay marriage / health benefits / civil unions, but who the hell is the ACLU to assume what the people meant in their vote?

 

In the suit, the ACLU said Michigan voters passed the Marriage Amendment in November because they wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage, not to deprive same-sex couples of benefits.

 

"The voters in Michigan, in approving the Marriage Amendment, were not motivated by any malevolent desire to strip families of health insurance or job benefits,"

Why not work towards universal coverage so that all Americans have access?

 

Because it's going to be impractical to do so until health insurance costs go down. We can either have universal healthcare with substandard medical care and a lack of pharmaceutical innovation (like Canada and Europe) or the current system. Neither is perfect, but I'll take current system. I'd rather have the option of purchasing quality health care insurance on my own than to not have it available at all.

 

FWIW, I know that some companies are including "domestic partner" healthcare insurance already. Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, I think that offering healthcare benefits to live-in partners is definitely a positive thing.

Ya know I don't really know which way I swing (No pun intended  ) on this issue of gay marriage / health benefits / civil unions, but who the hell is the ACLU to assume what the people meant in their vote?

 

Maybe, the ACLU knows because the voters did not vote to "deprive same-sex couples of benefits".

Ya know I don't really know which way I swing (No pun intended  ) on this issue of gay marriage / health benefits / civil unions, but who the hell is the ACLU to assume what the people meant in their vote?

 

 

Ahhh once again the all knowing ACLU sticks their nose into something.

 

Haven't you heard? They are god! They are there to think for you because you feeble minded masses can't do it for yourselves.

 

:rolly

Maybe, the ACLU knows because the voters did not vote to "deprive same-sex couples of benefits".

But, they claim to know what the voters were "motivated" by.

 

"The voters in Michigan, in approving the Marriage Amendment, were not motivated by any malevolent desire to strip families of health insurance or job benefits,"

Because it's going to be impractical to do so until health insurance costs go down.  We can either have universal healthcare with substandard medical care and a lack of pharmaceutical innovation (like Canada and Europe) or the current system.  Neither is perfect, but I'll take current system.  I'd rather have the option of purchasing quality health care insurance on my own than to not have it available at all.

 

FWIW, I know that some companies are including "domestic partner" healthcare insurance already.  Whatever one thinks of gay marriage, I think that offering healthcare benefits to live-in partners is definitely a positive thing.

 

Yah, my company's cool like that. Offers domestic partner insurance-- gay or straight.

Ya know I don't really know which way I swing (No pun intended  ) on this issue of gay marriage / health benefits / civil unions, but who the hell is the ACLU to assume what the people meant in their vote?

 

I think its because the marriage amendment never specifically prohibited a benefit offered to non married couples to begin with. Therefore the marriage amendment wouldn't apply?

 

Just a guess.