Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me
Just read an article in my local paper that the City council will vote to end the extension of benefits to same sex unmarried couples. Same sex couples wanting to cover a partner will have to marry in order to do so. The city says since they don't offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it would be inequitable to continue to offer this benefit to same sex couples. I think we'll see more and more municipalities and companies making this change now that same sex marriage is legal in the entire country.
I'd like to know WHY same sex couples had benefits extended to them that weren't extended to hetero couples and how the city justified that?
I'd like to know WHY same sex couples had benefits extended to them that weren't extended to hetero couples and how the city justified that?
Simple, at one time same sex marriage wasn't legal, so the city found a loophole to still give benefits to those same sex couples. That loophole is no longer needed.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Simple, at one time same sex marriage wasn't legal, so the city found a loophole to still give benefits to those same sex couples. That loophole is no longer needed.
But the OP claims those very same benefits weren't extended to hetero couples. How'd they make that fly? Something just doesn't sound right here.
I'd like to know WHY same sex couples had benefits extended to them that weren't extended to hetero couples and how the city justified that?
Honestly, you can't figure this out. You have tried, but the answer is still elusive? Until recently, homosexual couples could not get married. Heterosexual couples could get married. Now, it is unnecessary because homosexuals have been granted the right to marry. In other words, homosexuals couples can be as equal as heterosexual couples in the eyes of law. I don't think homosexuals feel this is a loss, but if it makes some of you smugly satisfied, call it one.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsb62574
Honestly, you can't figure this out. You have tried, but the answer is still elusive? Until recently, homosexual couples could not get married. Heterosexual couples could get married. Now, it is unnecessary because homosexuals have been granted the right to marry. In other words, homosexuals couples can be as equal as heterosexual couples in the eyes of law. I don't think homosexuals feel this is a loss, but if it makes some of you smugly satisfied, call it one.
You apparently can't figure out what I asked.
The OP states the city extended benefits to unmarried same sex couples that weren't extended to unmarried hetero couples. My question was how they got away with that sort of discrimination?
I'd like to know WHY same sex couples had benefits extended to them that weren't extended to hetero couples and how the city justified that?
A lot of places did that. Where I work they offered it. I don't see where any of this is a big deal. It should all be made equal now. The places that offered it were only trying to make an unequal situation a little more equal.
But the OP claims those very same benefits weren't extended to hetero couples. How'd they make that fly? Something just doesn't sound right here.
Yep, it was the reverse of marriage only being allowed to heterosexual couples. Same sex couples couldn't marry, but if heterosexual couples wanted to have these benefits, they had to get married.
It is good that you see why denying same sex couples marriage for so long was wrong.
The OP states the city extended benefits to unmarried same sex couples that weren't extended to unmarried hetero couples. My question was how they got away with that sort of discrimination?
That is exactly right, just like many states in the country were getting away with discrimination by not allowing same sex marriage. If you make it a point to deny people a right, then don't be surprised when they get different benefits because they are different from heterosexual couples.
I'd like to know WHY same sex couples had benefits extended to them that weren't extended to hetero couples and how the city justified that?
Are you asking why one set of couples were screwed out of benefits by a private company or government?
Are you seriously asking that right now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
