Judge overturns Calif. gay marriage ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I am not so certain that the conservative case is as strong as many people think, because they have undermined the notion that it was 'obvious' that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women.

---

The conservatives who oppose this keep changing their argument. It's confusing.

First, it was about "think of the children", when they were spreading fear that kids would be "indoctrinated at school by gay teachers". Now, it's about defining marriage being between one man and one woman. Then they rally around the notion (again) that man + woman = children. So it's back to "think of the children". I've even heard some talk that traditional marriage people fear being persecuted if gay marriage is legal.

:confused:

That article by the conservative lawyer arguing the case was quite impressive I thought. Convinced me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

What do you mean by "BS"? You didn't read about Google doing this? Or are you denying there are tax implications for gay couples?

---

They aren't paying gay employees "a higher wage" at all. :confused: They are allowing gay employees on the company insurance plan to get their domestic partners insured too, and they will also pay the government the increased taxes on this benefit that straight employees wouldn't pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

What do you mean by "BS"? You didn't read about Google doing this? Or are you denying there are tax implications for gay couples?

---

I'm saying if it is as you say it is, then what Google is doing is BS. However, from the article you quoted, it seems that they are just ponying up what the government doesn't give because they are gay, and I guess that's ok.

Quote:

---

And I have no idea what you're on about with AA and teh LIBERULZ when it comes to legally recognized marriages. :confused:

---

I'm saying.... banning marriage for gays without giving them identical financial incentives in domestic partnerships, while giving financial incentives to married couples is, factually, financially discriminating against gay marriage. And so is affirmative action -- financially discriminating against "white" people...!

Quote:

---

I've even heard some talk that traditional marriage people fear being persecuted if gay marriage is legal.

:confused:

---

Depends, of course, on your definition of "persecuted"...


Illusions: I don't really believe you honestly think that most facets of the issue of gay marriage is not a liberulz vs. conservatives issue... say it one more time. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

marriage is supposed to be between a man and a women.

---

We see Hazir's real agenda here clearly now, don't we? -- take out the "a", and Hazir is now supporting polygamy!

Honestly, aga, could you lay off the drugs and make a bit more sense please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

We see Hazir's real agenda here clearly now, don't we? -- take out the "a", and Hazir is now supporting polygamy!

---

Because he wrote women instead of woman? What are you, a grammar Nazi? Woman/women is BTW the second example after read/read/read to show how non-phonetic the English writing is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Because he wrote women instead of woman? What are you, a grammar Nazi? Woman/women is BTW the second example after read/read/read to show how non-phonetic the English writing is.

---

Yeah, it must be my secret agenda rather than a typo. :D

I mean, I like Big Love too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Illusions: I don't really believe you honestly think that most facets of the issue of gay marriage is not a liberulz vs. conservatives issue... say it one more time. :)

---

I'm fairly certain its a human rights issue, since it would still be an issue regardless of whether or not conservatives or liberals were debating it, and is also an issue that exists in countries other than the United States (where apparently the words liberal and conservative have lost their relevant meaning). :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

They aren't paying gay employees "a higher wage" at all. :confused: They are allowing gay employees on the company insurance plan to get their domestic partners insured too, and they will also pay the government the increased taxes on this benefit that straight employees wouldn't pay.

---

You're right, I should have used words like compensated or pay instead of 'wage'. Whew, glad you picked that nit before a reader got confused about Google's intentions for their gay employees. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

I'm saying if it is as you say it is, then what Google is doing is BS. However, from the article you quoted, it seems that they are just ponying up what the government doesn't give because they are gay, and I guess that's ok.

---

It's not what I say it is, it's what Google says it's doing: evening the playing field for their gay employees (who, btw, call themselves Gayglers).

Quote:

---

Google to Add Pay to Cover a Tax for Same-Sex Benefits

Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent. The tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer.

On average, employees with domestic partners will pay about $1,069 more a year in taxes than a married employee with the same coverage, according to a 2007 report by M. V. Lee Badgett, director of the Williams Institute, a research group that studies sexual orientation policy issues.

So Google is essentially going to cover those costs, putting same-sex couples on an even footing with heterosexual employees whose spouses and families receive health benefits.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/yo...siegel_bernard

Quote:

---

I'm saying.... banning marriage for gays without giving them identical financial incentives in domestic partnerships, while giving financial incentives to married couples is, factually, financially discriminating against gay marriage.

---

Yes, that's what I said. Financial discrimination built into our system via health insurance and tax rules, because they favor legally married hetero couples.

<What's interesting is that ALL singles are still discriminated against, to a certain degree, with the reasoning they can just get married if they want certain perks. :hmm: >

Quote:

---

And so is affirmative action -- financially discriminating against "white" people...!

---

:rolleyes: Sounds like a different thread, maybe one about hiring quotas. White people aren't discriminated against when buying insurance or paying taxes. Really, you come off sounding like an Angry White Guy.

Quote:

---

Depends, of course, on your definition of "persecuted"...

---

No thanks. No clue how married hetero couples can claim to be worried about that. If anything, they'd find equal protection under the law if they become a minority group. But only if marriage laws change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yeah, it must be my secret agenda rather than a typo. :D

---

Maybe a Freudian typo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Maybe a Freudian typo?

---

I'd blame it on the damn touchpad on this notebook which is placed in a way so that I sometimes hit a part of it with my thumb that makes the text I just typed disappear. It makes me sloppier than usual with spelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

What's interesting is that ALL singles are still discriminated against, to a certain degree, with the reasoning they can just get married if they want certain perks. :hmm:

---

Interesting... I didn't think of this. :)... so, what's the difference between a person who chooses not to marry and a person who chooses to marry someone of the same gender?

"equal rights for all", indeed...

What about babies? Why can't they get married? It's ageism, too...

What about the kid that the "family" adopts or has via in vitro? Why does he have to be forced to live with two moms or two dads? No, it's not the same... males and females have biologically different predispositions towards their children, on average, so wouldn't having two moms or two dads be depriving the child of the variety of having two eventually insane/impossible parents, but insane for two different reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Interesting... I didn't think of this. :)... so, what's the difference between a person who chooses not to marry and a person who chooses to marry someone of the same gender?

"equal rights for all", indeed...

---

Depends on their government's definitions, I suppose. IMO to be truly non-judgemental with equal rights for all would mean.....treating everyone as a singular individual. Not holding my breath on that one, not in my lifetime at least. History is too steeped toward ideas that favor marriage, partnering, families, children. Might be considered "radical" to view individuals as separate entities.

Quote:

---

What about babies? Why can't they get married? It's ageism, too...

---

Are you high? :haha: That doesn't even garner a reply, aggie.

Quote:

---

What about the kid that the "family" adopts or has via in vitro? Why does he have to be forced to live with two moms or two dads? No, it's not the same... males and females have biologically different predispositions towards their children, on average, so wouldn't having two moms or two dads be depriving the child of the variety of having two eventually insane/impossible parents, but insane for two different reasons?

---

Care to share what you're smoking? You're getting hung up on high tech procreation and IVF, or biology rights, and assigning those things "oddity" status instead of normality or equal rights.

To kids, it's really no different than a family (created the old-fashoined way) where one parent dies. Widow, widower. Remarriage, second family, what have you. Or when both parents die and kids are raised by Aunties or Nanas, Uncles or Grampas, or adopted. Children just need to feel part of a Family and cherished, that's nirvana nectar.

(As an aside, my mom was an adoptee. Never felt the need to find her biological parents. As far as she was concerned, her parents were her parents. Took me decades to truly embrace the concept, since my peers were all about "their heritage and family tree lineage". We even have entire web sites now, catering to people who want to know "their genetic links". Fine for some, I suppose. Especially if they've got a genetic disease and are hunting for a suitable organ donor. But beyond that.......kinda lame.)

I have some questions for you aggie, if you're up to it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

<What's interesting is that ALL singles are still discriminated against, to a certain degree, with the reasoning they can just get married if they want certain perks. :hmm: >

---

Unmarried couples are, singles are not.

The perk is a tax-free healthcare cover for a partner, singles don't have a partner.

It makes me so happy to see this moment even being approximated, much less considered.

I've been involved with the gay community for a long time. I miss those fabulous men from the heydays more than ever. They would be so proud and so delighted to see these developments.

This old fag hag wishes the best to this last frontier. Freedom to love who you desire, where you desire AND with tax credits!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Unmarried couples are, singles are not.

The perk is a tax-free healthcare cover for a partner, singles don't have a partner.

---

That's exactly what I said. Singles without partners (or children) don't get perks of any kind. Not in lower insurance rates or tax deductions.

In fact, some singles will agree to 'marriages of convenience' just to get spousal health insurance coverage. Loophole or structural flaw? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's exactly what I said. Singles without partners (or children) don't get perks of any kind. Not in lower insurance rates or tax deductions.

In fact, some singles will agree to 'marriages of convenience' just to get spousal health insurance coverage. Loophole or structural flaw? ;)

---

No that still doesn't make sense. Singles without partners aren't paying less in insurance rates than the married employees :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No that still doesn't make sense. Singles without partners aren't paying less in insurance rates than the married employees :confused:

---

Read it again.

(Singles have to pay MORE for health insurance, when compared to being a partner add-on. We don't have a NHS.....)

Maybe compared to a partner, but not compared to the original person. Single employees aren't the partner of an employee.

There's a significant question as to whether the Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal since Schwarzenegger and the AG have declined. The case may have ended with Judge Walker's ruling. We'll find out soon enough I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Maybe compared to a partner, but not compared to the original person. Single employees aren't the partner of an employee.

---

That's an odd way of looking at it. The couple's rates aren't just double a single's rates, and you can't split off the original person from the added partner.

EG: If policy costs are $500/mo for an individual, but $800/mo for a couple, that's equivalent to $400/mo/per partnered person. That's a savings of $100/mo per person when compared to the lone individual. They also have the advantage of co-mingling the deductible (they don't each have to pay the deductible before insurance benefits kick in). That's a savings of at least $1,000-$5,000 per year for a couple/family policy.

So yes, there's a financial bias for couples, or a discrimination against singles. :coffee:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That article by the conservative lawyer arguing the case was quite impressive I thought. Convinced me.

---

?

I just threw up a little in my mouth :|

That goes on for 8 minutes? :rolleyes:

‎

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

---

Oh snap, trial just got serious, son!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

?

---

What's your question mark for?

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/08/t...-marriage.html

That article is very convincing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angel_Mapper

‎Oh snap, trial just got serious, son!

---

Yeah, it means the case might be dismissed without the appellant's grounds being considered.

What does "lack of Article III standing" mean in layman's English?