Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

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

^would buy

I know a male/female couple who couldn't get coverage
under each other's employers for ages until WA set up domestic partnerships, now they have a lot more protection as a couple who don't want to marry (both are older and divorced, marriage wasn't something either wanted again). So crazy that this is so tied up with if you have a job and who you work for.

So crazy that this is so tied up with if you have a job and who you work for.

Yeah that's kind of the not-spoken-enough part of all the marriage fights is that the legal and financial advantages of being married are themselves so deeply screwy and rooted in norms (the one-worker family with the stay-at-home spouse) long since eroded anyway.

Right---I'm probably recapitulating something said above but my impression since the 1990s is that plutocratic opposition to gay rights is grounded in their being "good" businesspeople, recognizing that they stand to lose financially if the financial benefits of marriage are more widely distributed. It may not add up to much $$$ but these folks live on the margins anyway.

whereas I think (& could be wrong!) that 1960s civil rights did not cost the plutocrats much; and maybe it even helped since it got money that might otherwise be sitting under mattresses or in segregated economic structures into their hands. Hence the plutocrats did not make too much of 1960s civil rights (and again could be wrong about all this)

is/was there plutocratic opposition to gay rights? i thought the opposition was 90% religious/moral in character.

I'm a bit of a cynic on this---I follow the money---but shit like DOMA & the usual GOP claptrap against gay rights wouldn't be a thing if they were just a sop to people clinging to the missionary position because God says so.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/06/24/opinion/sundayreview_hpimages/sundayreview_hpimages-custom3.jpg

^the true story of how new york legalized gay marriage

I'm a bit of a cynic on this---I follow the money---but shit like DOMA & the usual GOP claptrap against gay rights wouldn't be a thing if they were just a sop to people clinging to the missionary position because God says so.

― Euler, Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:38 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eh, i "follow the money" too and i dont think that rich people were ever, in particular, opposed to gay marriage. in fact it seems to have been legalized in ny only through the interference of rich republican/libertarian donors who were able to effectively lean on GOP opponents

its a "red meat" issue or whatever the phrase is. like abortion, something else i cant see a "plutocratic" argument against but is nonetheless one of the GOPs big issues

i think what were seeing is the republican leadership fast realizing this issue is not only no longer an electoral winner for them but is in fact inflicting serious long term damage via alienating the youths

i mean they can only afford to pander to their red meat constituency to the extent that it helps them win

obvs new york is somewhat ahead of the curve in that its fairly liberal, but just you know somewhat

not like he endorsed marriage, but in her book Nixon's late-life assistant wrote that Dick said of the GOP waging the '92 culture war, "Gay, not gay, i DON'T CARE" (paraphrase). So he got over his aversion to All in the Family presenting homos sympathetically, perhaps.

id imagine a lot of the gop leadership personally doesnt really care: gay; not gay

like there are tons of gays in important positions on the gop side in washington, all those stories abt bush being in his personal life quite chill re gays, etc

ken effin mehlman

yeah just goes to show you power is a much stronger fraternity than sexual identity race gender or w/e

not like he endorsed marriage, but in her book Nixon's late-life assistant wrote that Dick said of the GOP waging the '92 culture war, "Gay, not gay, i DON'T CARE" (paraphrase). So he got over his aversion to All in the Family presenting homos sympathetically, perhaps.

He went further: "I knew plenty of people in my White House who were gay; not my business."

In her book Laura Bush mentions pulling "George" aside and scolding him for supporting a constitutional amendment consecrating het marriage ("We know so many people who are or whose children are gay").

wait, his name isn't really George?

this thread title is a delight btw

reading up a bit: the Koch brothers & Richard Scaife favor gay marriage; it's a small sample, but I couldn't find anything on the Waltons or Sheldon Adelson. So I'm thinking I'm wrong on this one.

know a male/female couple who couldn't get coverage
under each other's employers for ages until WA set up domestic partnerships, now they have a lot more protection as a couple who don't want to marry (both are older and divorced, marriage wasn't something either wanted again). So crazy that this is so tied up with if you have a job and who you work for.

― joygoat, Sunday, June 26, 2011 1:47 AM Bookmark

domestic partnership coverage still sucks because the employee is charged 'imputed income' on the entire dollar amount of the premium used to cover their partner, including the portion the company subsidized. So that premium is added into their taxable income for the year. So there's still an extra benefit to marry in that case, as the imputed income would go away.

i think what were seeing is the republican leadership fast realizing this issue is not only no longer an electoral winner for them but is in fact inflicting serious long term damage via alienating the youths

― ice cr?m, Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:50 AM (11 hours ago)

puts them ahead of obama on this front at least

eh obamas prob triangulating this one just right for whatever thats worth

i mean theres running on an anti gay marriage platform theres pushing for full marriage rights and theres a lot in between

theres also you know new york and america

i mean theres running on an anti gay marriage platform theres pushing for full marriage rights and theres a lot in between

― ice cr?m, Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:38 PM (4 minutes ago)

ringtone bi rights

theres also you know new york and america

don't know America too well, actually

its a krazy place

they dont allow gay marriage in most of it, but they do allow deep frying of anything

LOL BURNED U AMERICA

i think what were seeing is the republican leadership fast realizing this issue is not only no longer an electoral winner for them but is in fact inflicting serious long term damage via alienating the youths

― ice cr?m, Sunday, June 26, 2011 3:50 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

It's becoming a problem for them -- not just gay marriage, but gay rights in general -- because it's still a really potent wedge issue in a lot of state-level politics (e.g. in my wonderful state of Tennessee). But you're not going to hear a lot about it in national general elections, and even in the GOP primaries I think there's going to be this awkward dance of wanting to satisfy the base but not say anything that can be used to make them look too bigoted when it comes to the fall campaign.

Tennessee just had this interesting situation where the whole state Republican apparatus and state Chamber of Commerce were behind this really terrible bill that basically made it illegal for any local governments to add sexual orientation to anti-discrimination laws. But it got national attention from gay-rights groups and at the last minute suddenly all these national and international companies with operations here started backing away and saying they were opposed to it, and that it would make it harder for them to recruit employees here, etc. The state Chamber even withdrew its support -- tho after the bill had already passed. But I think there's going to be a lot of things like that, pandering to a local constituency but getting blowback at national levels. (See also Target, obviously.)

Republicans will keep gay-bashing as long as it helps win elections, but I think it's going to keep getting trickier for them.

As our parents and grandparents start dying, opposition will follow suit. Gay marriage aside, the GOP has a huge problem recruiting the young.

GINGRICH ON MARRIAGE
Thrice married Gingrich says New York state gay marriage law 'muddles' marriage.

just a lil muddling nbd

muddling is awesome, have you ever had a mojito

GINGRICH ON MARRIAGE
Thrice married Gingrich says New York state gay marriage law 'refreshes', 'relaxes' marriage.

no longer an electoral winner for them but is in fact inflicting serious long term damage via alienating the youths

Of these two, only the first matters to them. They have rebranded several times in the past and will do so whenever the old brand loses its appeal.

yeah true, also politicians trying to get elected now and could really care less abt anything else

but on the other hand political affiliations made when young are sticky, so while most of the gop might not really care now, it will affect them long term