Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

White House's Pride month proclamation, unlike the last two, makes no mention of recognizing gay relationships legally:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-issues-pride-month-proclamation.html

What a shitfuck.

Maybe he's pulling a Steve Jobs and we're getting the whole enchilada in June!

As critical as I am about the President, let me acknowledge the good he's done. Balloon Juice breaks it down:

1) Extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees
2) Signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
3) Instructed HHS to require any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds (virtually all hospitals) to allow LGBT visitation rights.
4) Banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government (the nation’s largest employer)
5) Signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
6) Extended the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover Gay employees taking unpaid leave to care for their children of same-sex partners
7) Lifted the HIV Entry Ban.
8) Implemented HUD Policies that Would Ban Discrimination Based On Gender Identity
9) Appointed the first ever transgender DNC member
10) Named open transgender appointees (the first President ever to do so)
11) Eliminated the discriminatory Census Bureau policy that kept LGBT relationships from being counted
12) Extended domestic violence protections to LGBT victims

I saw my first "Yes on 8 - Protect Marriage" bumpersticker on Sunday, on the car of a white woman driving her kid around. (I was driving through Bakersfield, RIP Buck Owens). Made me kind of apopleptic

i trust you did not wish death on her

I think I blurted out a string of expletives

It's so hard not to ram those cars

[[[[clowns gonna get clowned

Great news.:

Mr. Alesi informed Mr. Cuomo of his decision in a meeting on Monday afternoon. Speaking to reporters afterward, Mr. Alesi said he had anguished over his earlier opposition, and had apologized to gay-rights advocates “for voting politically rather than in a way that in my heart and soul I felt I should have voted.”

“What it really comes down to is one word: It’s equality, which is a basic right of living in America,” Mr. Alesi said. He qualified his support, saying he would vote for the bill only if it included protections for religious institutions.

All four senators who switched their votes said they had been persuaded to do so after discussing the issue with constituents and Senate colleagues in recent months.

“What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is,” Mr. Kruger said. “And that’s a good thing. The world around us evolves.”

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who has made same-sex marriage a personal and political priority.

gay marriage is cuomo's personal priority --> ergo sandra lee is biologically male.

tran-dra lee

heh, i wonder what convinced carl kruger to change his mind

Roffle

can I have back the tax dollars that were wasted on this idiocy now plz k thx

xxxxp Ok, it's from a month ago and OT, but whatever:

With this kind of logic in mind, I'm thinking that maybe white people should get jobs that pay proportionately less...

One of the many reasons why I've been trying to quit being a home health CNA is because I don't like the advantage being white gives me over the black/Latino majority in getting clients.

So Obama esentially came out for "states' rights" on marriage last night. Unpack the irony; it'll only take a second.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/obama-says-new-york-s-marriage-debate-is-example-of-democracy.html

He's right about NY though -- it's a purely political posture. If he supported the bill, the Dems would lose the handful of GOP votes hanging by a thread

or rather "if he openly supported the bill"

looks like NY senate is gonna be voting on gay marriage tonight...at some point, eventually

good job new york

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiSGw3dmMC4

your move illinois

http://youropenbook.org/?q=%22praying+for+new+york%22&gender=any

Marriage may not be the optimum rights-giver for gay couples, ie, some may be forced to marry even if they don't want to, bcz of the benefits puzzle, says Katherine Franke, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html

Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, “winning” the right to marry may mean “losing” the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we’ll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.

Of course, this means we’ll be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry — whether they be gay or straight — to have their committed relationships recognized and valued.

At Columbia University, where I work, the benefits office tells heterosexual employees that they must marry to get their partners on the health plan. A male graduate student I know, informed that he’d have to marry his longtime girlfriend for her to get benefits, was told, “Too bad your girlfriend isn’t a man — it would be so much easier!”

They ended up marrying, though they were politically and personally uninterested in doing so. I, by contrast, only had to fill out a form saying that my partner and I lived in the same household, to add her to my policy. An institution like Columbia (which is secular, I might add) should not be in the marriage-promotion business for either straight or gay employees, particularly when domestic partnerships can do the gate-keeping job just as effectively as marriage does.

I do feel this, especially since I'm in a similar quandary as the male grad student right now in re: moving in with my girlfriend and wanting to get her on my health coverage but unable to do so without actually being married, whereas if it was a boyfriend it wouldn't be an issue. But it seems like the next logical step to focus on as a result.

that seems to be sort of a backward way to look at the issue, doesnt it? the injustice here is that people dont universally have access to health care, not that domestic partnerships are "better" than marriage

yeah yeah yeah... but no. Just improve 'domestic partnerships' and get government out of the marriage business. Even R Diaz Sr would be happy!

well sure but i think that our first priority should be providing universal access to health care, not tailoring the way the gov't sanctions relationships to fit an unjust system

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576406201312879150.html

interesting article about the strategy behind the vote. depressing to realize that everything in this country, even gay marriage, requires millions of dollars from a rich libertarian

i'm beginning to change my opinion on health care... realizing that maybe i'm /not/ in favor of universal health care. universal catastrophy coverage, absolutely... but when did it become every employer's responsibility to cover each individual's private, non-work-related health?

well that's not really what "univeraal health care" is

huh?

universal

healthcare

I didn't think universal health care necessarily involved employers...? xposts

...single payer is better?

xp max

that "huh?" was to remy

i dont really get what hes saying

Oh. Right. Yeh, govt.-mandated employer coverage is a pretty lame excuse for "universal" healthcare.

its possible to be "pro"-universal health care and believe that its not the responsibility of employers to provide it. (in fact its kind of necessary!)

i.e., if you believe that everyone should have access to health care, there ought to be no preconditions to access--such as employment

tbf guaranteeing universal access to health care doesn't necessarily take employers out of the picture---for instance in France your employer by law contributes big coin to your health insurance.

yeah max i kind of conflated two points. i'll spread out what i was saying on a more appropriate thread, but i had a long conversation w/ an MPH friend last night, and I learned a lot of really interesting stuff. Single payer isn't the riht answer either, but i'll be more thoughtful and less glib when i get a chance to type out my thots

Employers more or less got in the benefits game as a way of recruiting key talent and encouraging them to stay. many employers are cutting health benefits, though, for financial reasons, and going to insurance that well, is insurance, but still costs a lot out of pocket (lots of those high-deductible health plans with an attached health savings/reimbursement account).

Universal health care might cause some of those employers to make greater cuts, given the 'national' option to their employees, but I still think many will remain competitive in the game because it still remains a good recruiting tool -- there are still people who go to lower paying jobs because of better benefits offered.

I'm still in favor of national health insurance, then again I'm pretty much a borderline socialist so like I actually want it to be like free and stuff...

tbf guaranteeing universal access to health care doesn't necessarily take employers out of the picture---for instance in France your employer by law contributes big coin to your health insurance.

― Euler, Saturday, June 25, 2011 11:03 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

sure, but nor does it require employers to provide care or insurance. "universal health care" is just that, universal access to care--there are a lot of different ways to achieve it!

bien sûr, just pointing out that remy's point was conflating a couple of different points. There's universal health care in France but it costs the employers big time, & like in the USA lowers take-home salaries.

what i was getting at, incoherently, was i believe in a generous universal emergency/catastrophe coverage provided through a shared health pool. beyond that, individual health savings plans but ill get into it later

ick, I hate Health Savings accounts of all ilks. gimme a good HMO/EPO anyday (I'm aware that for people in rural populations, that these generally suck).

legalize w33d

and put it in specially marked cereal boxes

w33dies