Rockgurl

But they do have a choice...it's called marriage! How lucky they must be to have the opportunity to make that choice. How complacent people become when allowed those choices in detriment to others who do not have the luxury. Sorry, but my sympathy level is zero on this one.

sibsie

The US has the separation of church and state. Why on earth do people have to bring religion into it. No one has suggested for one moment that the recognition of same sex marriages is anything to do with the church.

I'm a Roman Catholic. My best friend is gay and she will be my main witness at my wedding. I don't see a conflict there at all.

effi

That is exactly what I said, they could get married but why should they have to, to get the same benefits as same sex couples. No-one is asking for sympathy. It just seems that pc is running rampant these days. People are afraid to voice their opinions, especially if they are white heterosexuals, for fear of being branded discriminatory. I am all for peoples rights, but please, be fair to everyone.

Rockgurl

Be fair? You have everything laid out for you...more than fairly! If you want the benefits of law, taxation and other rights then you have the choice to get married. If you choose not to get married then you can't expect any benefits. You already have a choice....do you want your cake and to eat it too? We have none of the choices available to us, so please tell me how it's fair if you get all the benefits and we get none? Our partners may get some benefits at work, but that's no use to me at the moment because I cannot live with my partner, and it only extends to health insurance anyway. We want the same rights as you...not special rights. How is it too PC to ask for the same, equal rights as you? I think there should be the same for everyone....choose marriage or don't choose marriage. I don't believe in civil unions because I believe they are not equal. Because society still seeks to keep us seperate with seperate laws, it leads to opinions like this that believes we are somehow unequal.

CitySimon

I think that the company mentioned in Effi's initial post is clearly very forward thinking. To have taken the step of accepting homosexual couples and giving them the same benefits that are available to married hetrosexual couples.


Rockgurl, you are completely right (in my opinion). In the event that same-sex couples are allowed to legally marry nationwide they must be allowed ALL of the same rights which are taken for granted by hetrosexual couples.

But, in the same way, hetrosexual couples must be given the same rights as homosexual couples... In this instance it will mean that unmarried hetrosexual couples are given the same benefits as unmarried homosexual couples. A balance goes both ways!

The logical step, which will bring the company in question in line with all other companies, would be to remove benefits from all unmarried couples (homosexual or hetrosexual).


In my experience (very limited) of homosexuals they want nothing more than to be given the same rights which are given to hetrosexuals!

CitySimon

Before anybody says anything, I would just like to make one amendment to my previous post.


I think that the company mentioned in Effi's initial post is clearly very forward thinking. To have taken the step of accepting homosexual couples and giving them the same benefits that are available to married hetrosexual couples.


Rockgurl, you are completely right (in my opinion). In the event that same-sex couples are allowed to legally marry nationwide they must be allowed ALL of the same rights which are taken for granted by hetrosexual couples.

But, in the same way, hetrosexual couples must be given the same rights as homosexual couples... In this instance it will mean that unmarried hetrosexual couples are given the same benefits as unmarried homosexual couples. A balance goes both ways!

The logical step, ##in the event that homosexual marriage is legalised nationwide##, which will bring the company in question in line with all other companies, would be to remove benefits from all unmarried couples (homosexual or hetrosexual).


In my experience (very limited) of homosexuals they want nothing more than to be given the same rights which are given to hetrosexuals!


Apologies for any confusion which may have resulted in my comments being used out of context in a view contrary to my personal beliefs.

Rockgurl

Simon, thank you for your well thought out and eloquent post. I agree with all you say. I think that any company offering benefits to same-sex couples is a huge step forward, and is to be applauded. However, I think what I was trying to say was that that is not nearly enough, and although a positive change, would not award us equal rights...merely some rights. I agree that unmarried partners should not be able to receive benefits if both heterosexuals and homosexual couples are allowed to marry, which is pretty much echoing what youn said in your post. Everyone should have access to the same choices.

irb

With my devils advocate hat on, might I suggest that it is not because companies are homophobic but that they fear abuse of benefit rights if the right is opened up to 'non married' couples, whatever their sex. Seems that a lot of people drop in and out of relationships quite quickly. If a female is claiming a benefit from her male partners company, then the couple split up and remain 'just friends' she might continue to claim the benefits. Pehaps that is why companies would want a commitment to a 'relationship' before being eligible for benefit. The act of marriage is currently the only legally recognised form of commitment at present. Perhaps what is needed is some way for same sex couples to be able to commit legally to a relationship. However, if it is going to be some way that stands up legally, the Fedral Government will want to look at it long and hard because it will have a financial impact on them. I know Britany has just proved you can dump a marriage quickly, but it does require some paper work filing and commitment, and who knows, if other pressures weren't at work with Britney, maybe she might still be married.

Patrick

This is exactly what the whole massachusettes thing is all about. Currently (under state law) same sex couples have the same rights as straight couples. So they can cover there partner in healthcare, taxes and so on and so forth. This has been the case in MA for many years, but they do not recognise gay marriage.

The court hearing this week was if they recognise same sex relationships for taxes, healthcare etc why can't they marry and the judge said yes they can.

In England if you live with a (straight) partner for a certain amount of time they become your common law wife/husband and you start to receive the same benefits as married couple. Maybe they should apply that rule to gay relationships, that would make sense (then when has sense and the law ever met)

Patrick

Pulaski

Which is exactly the point that Effi is making - unmarried (gay) couples are receiving benefits that are otherwise reserved for married couples. If one class of unmarried couples is given a benefit then all classes of unmarried couples, that meet whatever the standard criteria is (e.g.my employer's policy is for benefits to be available in the case of long-term relationships where marriage would not otherwise be prohibited, but includes same sex couples, so father-daughter, aunt-nephew, brother-brother, mother-daughter etc are excluded) should get the same treatment.

Duncs

Not trying to start a row with Patrick but thats not technically true. The idea of common law marriage is a commonly held misconception in the UK. No formal legal rights are created for partners SOLELY on the basis of a percieved relationship between partners.

effi

Exactly my point. You should take a bit more time to read what is written before firing off an answer.

CitySimon

Effi, Rockgurl...

That is the very point that I was trying to get you too!!

You are both agreeing with each other!

monroe911

I ama female for UK who has met another female in US well i have NO HOPE how on earth can we be together-impossible till the laws are changed and we can marry and live in one country not seperate ones...gays should have the same rights ..as this is expensive back and forward[can you tell i am a scotty] lol

Jan Alaska

I've just read Rockgurls "fairness" thread .... and all I have to say is "hear hear" !!! Its time everyone was treated the same, good grief this is the 21st century after all !!

Jan