Now Dubya, do you really think the liberal courts should tell a copmany how to offer their product.If you feel so strong about this, start your own health ins. co. for gay / lesbians. I do not think you will find anyone objecting. The problem here is the liberal courts are making a rule for state employees. Guess what is coming next. Same for both private and public co\’s. Surprised this was not a Mass. or Calf. case.
I\’d like to stay home with my kids too. If I weren’t married and I lived with a male friend (a friend of 20+ years) could I obtain benefits under his heath insurance policy? What’s the difference? Do I have to have sex with him? Do I have to love him? Of course we can’t procreate but he could adopt my children couldn’t he? Come on people, I’m sick of working!
But of course your reasoning applies equally to male-female friends who marry simply to get all the benefits afforded married couples. It happens all the time, and probably more frequently than there would be legitimate gay couples using this ruling.
There will always be a few people out to game the system. Doesn\’t mean we base our public policy on that fact.
…but male / female relationships may produce offspring and that may have been the original intent in affording health care benefits to a spouse. I could be wrong?!?
Gay friends don\’t have to worry about unexpected pregnancies do they?
In general, if you\’re just friends you don\’t have to worry about unexpected pregancies, gay or straight. :)
I\’m not in favor of extending benefits to cheaters. But the state says no benefits unless you are married, and by the way, you two can\’t get married. That\’s not cheating, it\’s classic discrimination. The state doesn\’t check whether its straight employees\’ marriages are legitimate; I bet they don\’t even require any proof! And many covered employees will never take advantage of the pregnancy services, so I don\’t see why that\’s an issue.
Anyway, I thought stay-at-home moms were a good thing. She got a job not to enjoy a premium lifestyle but to get affordable health care. Now, if you\’re suggesting we should have a National Health Plan that covers all citizens, we can forget about this. But as long as there are haves and have-nots, you have to expect this kind of thing.
\”Now Dubya, do you really think the liberal courts should tell a copmany how to offer their product.If you feel so strong about this, start your own health ins. co. for gay / lesbians. I do not think you will find anyone objecting. The problem here is the liberal courts are making a rule for state employees. Guess what is coming next. Same for both private and public co\’s. Surprised this was not a Mass. or Calf. case\”
No one is trying to tell a company how to offer their product. And the problem is not liberal courts. The problem is discrimination. There\’s no more reason to start an insurance company for gays then there is to start one for people who wear striped ties. It still wouldn\’t be affordable. You can\’t hide behind the rule that says \”only if you\’re married\” if you won\’t let them marry. If you\’re honest, you\’ll simply admit that you don\’t care whether your fellow human beings can have the same benefits you enjoy.
\”How do I claim if I\’m a child molester ? Spouse or victim ?
Which box do I check for beastiality and do we get to pick the vet of our choice or is one assigned by the Ins. company ?\”
The sad irony is that child molesters, rapists and murderers ALREADY QUALIFY FOR THE STATE\’S HEALTH PLAN! They simply have to be married, or lie and say they are married. Doesn\’t this bother you?
\”Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no other combination that procreates. If you believe that is discrimination, take it up with our creator, or if that\’s offensive to you take it up with Darwin. Either way homosexuals will never be able to procreate.\”
You\’re making excellent progress. Marriage is a religious institution. Health insurance from your employer is a secular benefit. When you mix the two together, you make a mess. Insurance coverage is not based on who can and can\’t procreate.
Please remember what our president said:
\”We have recognized God\’s image in ourselves, we must recognize it in every human being.\” And
\”The United States was called to bring God’s gift of liberty to every human being in the world.\”
Jesus said, \”Who is good, but God?\”
You and I may disagree on what defines a marriage, but why do you deserve affordable health care and gays don\’t?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no other combination that procreates. If you believe that is discrimination, take it up with our creator, or if that\’s offensive to you take it up with Darwin. Either way homosexuals will never be able to procreate.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Now Dubya, do you really think the liberal courts should tell a copmany how to offer their product.If you feel so strong about this, start your own health ins. co. for gay / lesbians. I do not think you will find anyone objecting. The problem here is the liberal courts are making a rule for state employees. Guess what is coming next. Same for both private and public co\’s. Surprised this was not a Mass. or Calf. case.
I\’d like to stay home with my kids too. If I weren’t married and I lived with a male friend (a friend of 20+ years) could I obtain benefits under his heath insurance policy? What’s the difference? Do I have to have sex with him? Do I have to love him? Of course we can’t procreate but he could adopt my children couldn’t he? Come on people, I’m sick of working!
How do I claim if I\’m a child molester ? Spouse or victim ?
Which box do I check for beastiality and do we get to pick the vet of our choice or is one assigned by the Ins. company ?
But of course your reasoning applies equally to male-female friends who marry simply to get all the benefits afforded married couples. It happens all the time, and probably more frequently than there would be legitimate gay couples using this ruling.
There will always be a few people out to game the system. Doesn\’t mean we base our public policy on that fact.
…but male / female relationships may produce offspring and that may have been the original intent in affording health care benefits to a spouse. I could be wrong?!?
Gay friends don\’t have to worry about unexpected pregnancies do they?
In general, if you\’re just friends you don\’t have to worry about unexpected pregancies, gay or straight. :)
I\’m not in favor of extending benefits to cheaters. But the state says no benefits unless you are married, and by the way, you two can\’t get married. That\’s not cheating, it\’s classic discrimination. The state doesn\’t check whether its straight employees\’ marriages are legitimate; I bet they don\’t even require any proof! And many covered employees will never take advantage of the pregnancy services, so I don\’t see why that\’s an issue.
Anyway, I thought stay-at-home moms were a good thing. She got a job not to enjoy a premium lifestyle but to get affordable health care. Now, if you\’re suggesting we should have a National Health Plan that covers all citizens, we can forget about this. But as long as there are haves and have-nots, you have to expect this kind of thing.
\”Now Dubya, do you really think the liberal courts should tell a copmany how to offer their product.If you feel so strong about this, start your own health ins. co. for gay / lesbians. I do not think you will find anyone objecting. The problem here is the liberal courts are making a rule for state employees. Guess what is coming next. Same for both private and public co\’s. Surprised this was not a Mass. or Calf. case\”
No one is trying to tell a company how to offer their product. And the problem is not liberal courts. The problem is discrimination. There\’s no more reason to start an insurance company for gays then there is to start one for people who wear striped ties. It still wouldn\’t be affordable. You can\’t hide behind the rule that says \”only if you\’re married\” if you won\’t let them marry. If you\’re honest, you\’ll simply admit that you don\’t care whether your fellow human beings can have the same benefits you enjoy.
\”How do I claim if I\’m a child molester ? Spouse or victim ?
Which box do I check for beastiality and do we get to pick the vet of our choice or is one assigned by the Ins. company ?\”
The sad irony is that child molesters, rapists and murderers ALREADY QUALIFY FOR THE STATE\’S HEALTH PLAN! They simply have to be married, or lie and say they are married. Doesn\’t this bother you?
\”Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no other combination that procreates. If you believe that is discrimination, take it up with our creator, or if that\’s offensive to you take it up with Darwin. Either way homosexuals will never be able to procreate.\”
You\’re making excellent progress. Marriage is a religious institution. Health insurance from your employer is a secular benefit. When you mix the two together, you make a mess. Insurance coverage is not based on who can and can\’t procreate.
Please remember what our president said:
\”We have recognized God\’s image in ourselves, we must recognize it in every human being.\” And
\”The United States was called to bring God’s gift of liberty to every human being in the world.\”
Jesus said, \”Who is good, but God?\”
You and I may disagree on what defines a marriage, but why do you deserve affordable health care and gays don\’t?
Dubya,
Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no other combination that procreates. If you believe that is discrimination, take it up with our creator, or if that\’s offensive to you take it up with Darwin. Either way homosexuals will never be able to procreate.