Every Time It's Put To A Vote...

[Kathianne]

Now this strikes me as a bit weird, after all there's no changes to 'their own' benefits. Question is was the 'No' aimed at LGBT or unmarried heteros?

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/201...-benefits.html

Unions reject partner benefits

BY IGNAZIO MESSINA
BLADE STAFF WRITER

The majority of members belonging to three city of Toledo union locals declined to let employees in domestic partnerships receive the same health-insurance benefits extended to spouses of legally married city employees — something that Mayor Mike Bell and city council approved this year.


The Toledo Police Patrolman’s Association and two units of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 7, in three separate votes, rejected the benefit.


Don Czerniak, Local 7 president, said the employees overwhelmingly disagreed with extending the benefit to unmarried couples — which could have covered both heterosexual and same-sex couples who register as domestic partners...

[LiberalNation]

and ya wonder why gays want marriage. It's all about equal benifits. Money is a major motivator.

[red states rule]

and ya wonder why gays want marriage. It's all about equal benifits. Money is a major motivator.

and people in Hell want ice water. You can want all oyu want LN - a majority of voters (even in liberal CA) are saying no on this

[tailfins]

and ya wonder why gays want marriage. It's all about equal benefits. Money is a major motivator.

Interesting perspective. On the other side, the AFSCME members are only liberal when it butters their own bread. It appears those who voted no were against dividing their benefits fund with more people. I'm against gay marriage because it trivializes marriage.

[LiberalNation]

so does divorce lol.

[Trigg]

interresting since presumably the cost of their healthcare cost wouldn't go up since everyone is paying into it.


LiberalNation:

1. you're right divorce trivializes marriage. People aren't interrested in working things out anymore since a divorce is so easy to get.

2. I don't understand why gays don't fight for legal partnerships that guarantee them the same rights are marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and IMHO it should stay that way. I have nothing against gays and legal partnerships. But, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to get the definition of marriage changed.

[fj1200]

Now this strikes me as a bit weird, after all there's no changes to 'their own' benefits. Question is was the 'No' aimed at LGBT or unmarried heteros?

I wonder if they recognize that their is a cost incurred even if there's no change to benefits.

and people in Hell want ice water. You can want all oyu want LN - a majority of voters (even in liberal CA) are saying no on this

That doesn't speak to her comment. Straights are favored by the status quo.

[fj1200]

But, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to get the definition of marriage changed.

How else are they to fight not being favored by the status quo?

[LiberalNation]

2. I don't understand why gays don't fight for legal partnerships that guarantee them the same rights are marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and IMHO it should stay that way. I have nothing against gays and legal partnerships. But, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to get the definition of marriage changed.

bc we learned from the past seperate is never equal. legal partnerships would be descriminated against.

[Trigg]

bc we learned from the past seperate is never equal. legal partnerships would be descriminated against.

how exactly?

If legal partnerships were given EVERY right that married couples get what is the problem?

Other than the word marriage what would gays gain?

[SassyLady]

how exactly?

If legal partnerships were given EVERY right that married couples get what is the problem?

Other than the word marriage what would gays gain?

I think they want to be "married" so that their relationships are viewed as normal. If civil unions are ruled to have all the same benefits as a marriage then I can no other reason for them to want to change the definition of marriage.

[glockmail]

Well Sass they are not normal, since "normal" is what most people do. If they want to be treated with respect then they shouldn't go around showing disrespect to the majority and important, long-standing societal institutions.

[Abbey Marie]

I think they want to be "married" so that their relationships are viewed as normal. If civil unions are ruled to have all the same benefits as a marriage then I can no other reason for them to want to change the definition of marriage.

They are closer to achieving this by being represented as normal on TV, than by getting marriage licenses. It's like a full-on campaign on sitcoms, especially. But I believe that no matter how they try, the majority of people will never see their "activities" as normal. Because, well, they're not.

[jimnyc]

and ya wonder why gays want marriage. It's all about equal benifits. Money is a major motivator.

Yeah, I can imagine, greed and money are wonderful motivators for people to want to have their love recognized as a marriage. Funny thing is, a few years ago when this really got rolling, it was all about "love" and being treated equally. If that be the case, hand out civil unions with similar benefits. Actually stop benefits from the government to married people as well and let people who want the greedy stuff pay for it, get contracts and do it without expecting the government to hold their hands for them.

Anyone looking to get married solely for benefits or money, don't truly love their partner. If they told me back in 1994 that I would get zero benefits marrying my wife, just a marriage certificate and a blessed union from the Church, I would have done nothing differently.

[jimnyc]

how exactly?

If legal partnerships were given EVERY right that married couples get what is the problem?

Other than the word marriage what would gays gain?

They want "acceptance" and to be told that their relationships are literally no different than a man and woman getting married. But lets face facts, it IS different. Does that mean we should discriminate? Nope. But most discrimination in this world is absolutely legal. Civil unions would identical benefits or lack of benefits solve the issue - but gays will say the title is different then, which is ridiculous. Marriage should be a religious institution all by itself and if someone doesn't qualify for that, well then too bad, they can get a civil union from the justice of the peace and hopefully get recognized with identical benefits.