firms pull benefits for unmarrieds

[cmotherofpirl]

Homosexuals victims of own success
Rights group complains as firms pull benefits for unmarrieds

Posted: December 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
After successfully pressing for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, a homosexual-rights group now is complaining because companies in the state are withdrawing benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners.

The companies' reasoning is that if homosexuals can marry, they should no longer be given special treatment that is not available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples, the Boston Globe reports.

One year ago, the state high court decided homosexual couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution and should be allowed to apply for marriage licenses, a practice implemented in May.

The companies withdrawing all or part of the special benefits include the New York Times Co., owner of the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

Other companies include IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center and Baystate Health System.

"We're saying if you're a same-sex domestic partner, you now have the same option heterosexuals have, so we have to apply the same rules to you," Larry Emerson, Baystate's vice president of human resources, told the Globe.

Some companies are informing homosexual employees they must marry to retain health benefits for partners, the paper reported.

A homosexual-rights group in the state insists the policy is unfair because the decision to marry still is more difficult for homosexual couples.

Michele Granda, staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders contends there still are "layers of discrimination" such as federal tax benefits not offered to same-sex couples and restrictions on international adoptions.

Some couples say they aren't ready to marry just because a longstanding barrier to marriage suddenly was lifted, Granda told the Globe.

"This is a civil rights battle, and it's going to take a matter of time but we are taking steps forward," she said.

The paper said, however, that the majority of companies that have provided domestic-partner benefits will continue, including Gillette Co., State Street Corp., and Bank of America Corp.

Some multistate companies even have expanded benefits this year in the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, including Staples Corp., National Grid USA, and Liberty Mutual Group.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:21 PM'] Homosexuals victims of own success
Rights group complains as firms pull benefits for unmarrieds

Posted: December 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
After successfully pressing for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, a homosexual-rights group now is complaining because companies in the state are withdrawing benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners.

The companies' reasoning is that if homosexuals can marry, they should no longer be given special treatment that is not available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples, the Boston Globe reports.

One year ago, the state high court decided homosexual couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution and should be allowed to apply for marriage licenses, a practice implemented in May.

The companies withdrawing all or part of the special benefits include the New York Times Co., owner of the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

Other companies include IBM Corp., Raytheon Co., Emerson College, Northeastern University, the National Fire Protection Association, Boston Medical Center and Baystate Health System.

"We're saying if you're a same-sex domestic partner, you now have the same option heterosexuals have, so we have to apply the same rules to you," Larry Emerson, Baystate's vice president of human resources, told the Globe.

Some companies are informing homosexual employees they must marry to retain health benefits for partners, the paper reported.

A homosexual-rights group in the state insists the policy is unfair because the decision to marry still is more difficult for homosexual couples.

Michele Granda, staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders contends there still are "layers of discrimination" such as federal tax benefits not offered to same-sex couples and restrictions on international adoptions.

Some couples say they aren't ready to marry just because a longstanding barrier to marriage suddenly was lifted, Granda told the Globe.

"This is a civil rights battle, and it's going to take a matter of time but we are taking steps forward," she said.

The paper said, however, that the majority of companies that have provided domestic-partner benefits will continue, including Gillette Co., State Street Corp., and Bank of America Corp.

Some multistate companies even have expanded benefits this year in the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, including Staples Corp., National Grid USA, and Liberty Mutual Group. [/quote]
Good. Let the flowers suffer.

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:22 PM'] Good. Let the flowers suffer. [/quote]
LOL

Man, hatred among Catholics is rampant isn't it?


That's nothing horrible. It's true. That only means that more gay couples will marry.

[Mary's Knight, La]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:38 PM'] LOL

Man, hatred among Catholics is rampant isn't it?

[/quote]
I don't believe icthus claims to be catholic.

and if you read a little you'd know catholics aren't taught as catholics to hate especially when it comes to those with a disordered desire.

[Phatmasser777]

LOL.

Geez they are just like women, want everything they're own way:P

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:21 PM'] The companies' reasoning is that if homosexuals can marry, they should no longer be given special treatment that is not available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples, the Boston Globe reports. [/quote]
If these companies truly do not offer domestic partner benefits (which they should) to opposite-sex couples then they are in the right on this issue. It smells of elderberries to lose your insurance, but it's more important that everyone get equal treatment. Then again, I don't necessarily believe that the companies don't offer domestic partner benefits to opposite sex couples. *shrug*

Of course, the purpose of domestic partner benefits is to provide for couples who can't or won't get married. I think the "won't" part is important, but obviously these companies disagree.

Edit: Upon further research, I am disgusted by the humber of companies like these that don't offer opposite-sex domestic partner benefits.

Edited December 10, 2004 by burnsspivey

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Mary's Knight' date=' La,Dec 9 2004, 08:42 PM'] I don't believe icthus claims to be catholic.

and if you read a little you'd know catholics aren't taught as catholics to hate especially when it comes to those with a disordered desire. [/quote]
Actually, I am a catholic. I'm not a Catholic, though.

I think this is an instance of God's temporal wrath visiting on them so that they may realize the error of their ways.

I actually shouldn't have said the above. ("Let the flowers suffer"). I very much agree with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching when it comes to this issue (her teaching as defined in her [i]Catechism[/i]).

Gay people have a disordered desire, which is most likely due to the effects of sin after the Fall. The catholic church (note that I don't mean the Roman Catholic Church, I mean the catholic church, as in all those who are Christians, and their baptised children), as God's agent for the salvation of sinners, outside of which no salvation is possible (ordinarily), should clutch them to her bosom and love them just as she would any of her other children, but at the same time, lovingly exhort them to live a chaste life and to give up their homosexual acts.

Which is why I applaud programs like COURAGE

Edited December 12, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Don John of Austria]

( nelson voice)Ha- ha

[Dreamweaver]

I remember reading this article on WND. I almost laughed at the absurdity. First homosexuals marry that they can't marry, and states won't recognize their unions. Now that they can get married (in some states), they whine when domestic benefits get pulled. Do these companies offer benefits for unmarried heterosexual couples too? I think it is only fair...(not that I agree with unmarried benefits in the first place).

[therevolution]

dang, dude seriously a lot of you guys need a check, i mean i know you guys are hardcore catholic orthodox kiddos but need to learn hate the sin not the sinner... besides most of your hate is oblivious, and its hard for you guys to sympathize or even get some insight into what homosexuality is, if you guys dont experience it

[cmotherofpirl]

No Catholic here has said anything about hating homosexuals.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 11 2004, 11:08 PM'] ( nelson voice)Ha- ha [/quote]
What're you lauging at, punk?

[Quietfire]

[quote name='therevolution' date='Dec 12 2004, 02:02 AM'] dang, dude seriously a lot of you guys need a check, i mean i know you guys are hardcore catholic orthodox kiddos but need to learn hate the sin not the sinner... besides most of your hate is oblivious, and its hard for you guys to sympathize or even get some insight into what homosexuality is, if you guys dont experience it [/quote]
No Catholic here has stated that they hate homosexuals.
Nor are they taught that, or teach such hatred.

It is the sin we hate, not the sinner.

I love those who are homosexual, or have homosexual desires but havent actually done anything homosexual, just as much as any heterosexual. Its the person I love, not their actions.
If you met someone and hit it off with them, and became friends and truly loved them...would you then hate that person because that person told you that he/she was a homosexual.
Of course not.

Pax

[Quietfire]

Let me also say that, since this thread has to do with a decision to remove benefits to those who are not married but living together...

I say...GOOD.



Pax