Me>>So if I move into a house with another guy and we live together should he get benefits from my employer?
Why does it depend on that, are we going to require employers to pay for my sex partners. it that the criteria, I'm having sex with them?
No, but we are going to require them to pay benefits equally to all life partners. The criteria is the relationship, not the sex.
All you need to know is that I move into a house with another guy and we live together, what goes on in my bedroom is none of yours or the employers business (I would assume since that is a common mantra of the left), should he get beneifts from my employer?
No what goes on in your bedroom is not any of my business. However, the relationship should be recognized and given the same benefit as any heterosexual relationship of the same nature. He should get the benefits if he is your partner in the romantic sense.
Where do you get the idea it takes a state law to allow an employer to do so? Any employer who wants to is pefectly free to do so right now.
If that is the case, then why was it written into law specifically?
I have no reason to believe all gay unions are life long and they are generally less so that traditional marriages. And how at twenty years of age do I prove to my employer this guy and I are moving in together for life anyway?
There is proof that not all heterosexual unions are life long and you will need to provide proof of your other assertion concerning the failure rate of homosexual UNIONS. And at twenty years of age, how is a straight couple supposed to know that they are together for life. Your deflection is an irrelevant smoke screen. The topic is concerning the equality of proven life partners and how they are treated.
yeah we committed to live together and pay our bills.
Good for you. Now what does that have to do with life partnerships and bonded pairs?
So if I move in with a girl she should get the benifits too or do we have to be having sex too?
You and a girl have the opportunity to form a legally bonded contract that makes her inheritor of your benefits. Homosexual couples do not have that avenue yet. Your point was?
I'm not a Christian and I certainly encourage heterosexual marriage so it's sprecious to try and bring that line in with me.
I never said you personally. I said the majority of the opposition bases its belief on religion. Again, what point were you making?
Nothing in the consitution about marriage, it's a state and a religious issue.
And I said nothing of the Constitutional involvement with marriage. I only mentioned the Constitutional guarantee to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a group are being denied these rights, perhaps the constitution should address it specifically as it did in the 14th amendment.
Sure it is. Although it's not an act of discrimination. We are all free to apply for marriage with the opposite of our sex. We are all free to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Thats discrimination if a portion of the population is disenfranchised from benefits based on whom they feel attracted to. It was denied to interracial marriage based on the same fallacious argument.
OK, I doubt the everyone, every single person, in the whole wide world agrees with most things i believe.
:rofl and that's why same sex marriage is losing so badly at the polls?
The last pew research poll had them pretty close to an even split, at least in the area of civil union. In the area of marriage,it wasnt a landslide either. Take a look:
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
No one is forcing her to do so, it's just a good idea to do so. No one forces me to do so with business partners, but it is a good idea. No one forced me to do so with my wife, who has children from another marriage, but we do so because it is a good idea.
And your contracts with your wife are very difficult to argue against. A contract as binding as a will is arguable when it involves a non relative, which currently life partners are considered as such under the law. Comparing your legal needs with a business partner and your established legal benefits with your wife against the lack of protection for homosexual couples is not only irrelevant, but it is also quite the insult.
It doesn't take hours to do so but so what. Everyone is advised to get their particular legal issues in order, whatever they are. And everyones is different.
To complete a living will, a power of attorney, an executive will, and healthcare requests certainly does involve hours worth of attorney fees. For the heterosexual couples, it is assumed and granted to spouses just because of their relationship. The same should be granted to all unions.
It is most certainly constitutional and they are responsible for their own circumstances. If you are telling me that they lived together for 23 years and never drew up a POA or proper wills then they don't get much sympathy from me.
When your sympathies are required for enforcement of Constitutional rights, I will be sure to send you the memo first. However, again you make an irrelevant point due to the fact that no matter what wills or POA's are drawn up, the employer is withholding the benefits based on moral disapproval of their relationship. That is unconstitutional especially because the employer is a state run institution. Reading the article...try it some time.
