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.
Is this really a case of anything but two wrongs allegedly making a right? I understand what you're saying, what I don't understand is why I've never heard of law suits by hetero couples challenging their right to the same benefits as other unmarried couples received.
Because heterosexual couples exercised their long held right to legally marry and received benefits based on it. Most people understand where the inequality lay and it wasn't about heterosexual couples feeling "forced" to marry. Now that all couples have this right, there's no need for unmarried partner benefits unless a city or company wishes to provide them.
Is this really a case of anything but two wrongs allegedly making a right? I understand what you're saying, what I don't understand is why I've never heard of law suits by hetero couples challenging their right to the same benefits as other unmarried couples received.
Everybody understands this but you buddy, save your drama for the Jerry Springer show.
I've never heard of this, probably because it never affected me. Still seems to me like something that would've been frequently challenged by hetero couples who didn't feel the need to ask either the state or a religion to bless their relationship.
Until recently, homosexual couples couldn't have the state bless their relationship. Heterosexual couples could. The law was meant to remedy the fact homosexual couples couldn't get benefits legally. Heterosexual couples COULD get benefits legally through marriage. Now, it is a non-issue as it should have always been.
Until recently, homosexual couples couldn't have the state bless their relationship. Heterosexual couples could. The law was meant to remedy the fact homosexual couples couldn't get benefits legally. Heterosexual couples COULD get benefits legally through marriage. Now, it is a non-issue as it should have always been.
There was legal reason for that.
Benefits were unwarranted, a run around if you will.
Since same sex couples can now get married, it's only fair that we all play by the same rules.
What would have been fair was to offer that same benefit to unmarried heterosexual couples. If you all want to preach equality and fairness, then it has to be across the board, not just when it benefits your pet causes. Liberal hypocrisy AGAIN.
Did you note, however, that these unmarried heterosexuals did not have parades, did not make a huge scene, did not carry on and on and make demands when they weren't being treated equally?
You can sit there and use the excuse that, "they didn't have the right to marry", which, they did have the right to marry, but the fact is, unmarried anyone doesn't mean THAT is who they would have married. In fact, I'll bet that benefit was abused. You just pretend you're in a serious relationship with someone to get the benefits. Could have been a roommate, but we'll say we are in a "serious, committed relationship" to get the benefits. Don't even act like that didn't happen...you would be either extremely naive and gullible, or you would be ridiculously dishonest.
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.
It seems logical to me. The ONLY argument that I could propose would be that it may not be SAFE to marry in some cities and let it be known in the workplace. Especially true if the city does not have an anti-discrimination law in place to prevent firing based on sexual orientation. I'm just giving a Devils advocate situation.
What would have been fair was to offer that same benefit to unmarried heterosexual couples. If you all want to preach equality and fairness, then it has to be across the board, not just when it benefits your pet causes. Liberal hypocrisy AGAIN.
Did you note, however, that these unmarried heterosexuals did not have parades, did not make a huge scene, did not carry on and on and make demands when they weren't being treated equally?
You can sit there and use the excuse that, "they didn't have the right to marry", which, they did have the right to marry, but the fact is, unmarried anyone doesn't mean THAT is who they would have married. In fact, I'll bet that benefit was abused. You just pretend you're in a serious relationship with someone to get the benefits. Could have been a roommate, but we'll say we are in a "serious, committed relationship" to get the benefits. Don't even act like that didn't happen...you would be either extremely naive and gullible, or you would be ridiculously dishonest.
Unmarried heterosexuals had the option of getting married, unmarried homosexuals didn't. Now that either can get married the rules were changed to make everyone who wants those benefits get married.
As for the benefit being abused, probably. Marriage benefits are abused every day too, even before same sex couples could get married. Marriages for green cards, marriages to get insurance, marriage for military benefits, marriage for money, etc
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.
