Gay Couple Loses Benefits With Move

[JackBeck]

By JESSIE BONNER
Associated Press Writer


EAGLE, Idaho (AP) -- What they didn't know before moving to Idaho could fill a house, and in many ways it does.

The kitchen table holds stacks of legal papers. Medication bottles litter a nearby countertop. The two-story home Robert Ryan, 42, shares with his partner, Ralph Martinelli, 53, overlooks a quaint suburb west of Boise, a rural landscape of ruddy hills that doesn't seem quite as welcoming as it once did.

A 2,400-mile move west once seemed like a chance at a fresh start, has instead it has delivered some hard lessons, especially about moving from a state that recognizes same-sex unions to one of the 21 states that don't.

The couple was stunned when Ryan was dropped from the company insurance plan the two shared in New Jersey, where they were able to register as domestic partners. Idaho does not formally recognize same-sex couples.

"It didn't even dawn on us that this would have an impact," Ryan said.

More at:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LOST_BENEFITS?SITE=KVUE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[sharesunited]

1. There's your Defense of Marriage Act.

Signed by Bill, I'm sorry to say.

[dsc]

7. that is wholly untrue

New Jersey doesn't permit marriage and Idaho wouldn't ever let partnerships exist so DOMA has the negative square root of zero to do with this case.

[sharesunited]

10. Wikipedia is far from perfect

but its entry on Civil Unions includes this passage:

The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of Vermont in 2000. The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them.

[dsc]

29. that is conflating two different things

no civil unions are recognized by the federal government (some elderly people in particular have advantaged themselves of civil unions for that very reason) but DOMA isn't the reason why. DOMA is why a Massachusetts couple can't get their relationship recognized. That is why so many of us have problems with civil unions. Also, I happen to think that part of DOMA is unconstitutional anyway under full faith and credit.

[sharesunited]

30. DOMA allows Idaho to disregard NJ partner status.

And this is what allows the employer or their insurance company to drop the partner's coverage.

If mandatory recognition were federal law, a change in state residence would not permit such a loophole.

But we don't live in that kind of country yet.

[dsc]

40. No, it doesn't

It would if Idaho offered partner status for say elderly heterosexuals but then denied it to gays but that isn't what Idaho is doing. They are simply not offering civil unions to anyone. No state has ever been required to offer things to people coming in from elsewhere they don't offer their own citizens.

[sharesunited]

71. OK I think I'm getting it now.

If I am legal drinking age in my home state, and I visit a neighboring state where it is unlawful to serve me, I cannot expect to be served on some claim of comity that I reside in a state where I can legally drink.

Once I put anything in terms of drinking, it becomes much more clear.

[dsc]

98. good analogy

[mondo joe]

46. Absolutely false. There is no law that requires a state to recognise another's civil unions

and DOMA has zero impact on that.

[China_cat]

76. I would look to Loving vs. Virginia

which DID set exactly that precedent.

Virginia and several other states refused to recognize marriages between people of different races. Going so far as to jail couples.

In 1967 the Supreme Court decided that this was unconstitutional and that the states HAD to recognize interracial marriages performed elsewhere in the same manner that they have to recognize your driver's license from another state.

Of course, that doesn't mean that THIS SC is going to pay any attention to that precedent, but it -is- there and should be the basis of allowing (at a minimum) the recognition of legal unions of same sex couples.

[mondo joe]

83. Marriage. Marriage. Not Civil unions. The law regards marriages across states - not

civil unions which are a state by state business and are not addressed by the law.

[Ms. Toad]

88. Ditto

I was just more wordy (below) :)

[Ms. Toad]

87. Actually,

Loving v. Virginia dealt with marriages, not with domestic partnerships. In Loving v. Virginia, both jurisdictions had laws governing marriage (i.e. marriage existed both places). The states had different rules about who could marry, and different rights/responsibilities attached to the state of marriage (as a simple example, community property laws in some states require an even split of marital assets - in other states whoever earns the assets owns them).

Loving v. Virginia said, essentially, was that once a couple was married every other state had to treat the couple as married and afford them the rights/responsibilities they granted couples married in their own state. It didn't have to grant them whatever the rights and responsibilities the marrying state would have granted them - just all of the rights and responsibilities they would have had if they had married there in the first place

The new state, in this instance, associates absolutely no rights/responsibilities with domestic partnerships because the legal status doesn't exist in the new state. Although I could see, for example, Massachusetts - or even Ohio - being forced to recognize my marriage under Loving v. Virginia (and its progeny with respect to recognition of foreign marriages (I was married in Canada)). I can even see Vermont being forced to recognize any domestic partnership entered into in California under Loving v. Virginia, since both California and Vermont have domestic partnerships. Were that to happen, Vermont would have to grant the California couples whatever rights/responsibilities the couples entering into the domestic partnership in Vermont would be entitled to - which may well be different from what the couple moving from California was entitled to back home.

Loving v. Virginia is not directly applicable, however, to recognition of domestic partnerships by a state in which no such entity exists. Telling a state it cannot pick and choose which married couples to treat as married is legally different from requiring a state to recognize a status it has chosen not to create for ANY couples.

[sharesunited]

90. Does the Constitutional analysis fall under

Rights & Immunities, Full Faith & Credit, or Equal Protection?

[Ms. Toad]

91. Full faith and credit.

(The inter-nation is a similar phrase which escapes me at the moment)

[China_cat]

92. What I'm talking about is marriage.

There are states where same-sex marriage IS possible. A couple married in one of those states should be able to be recognized as married in ALL states...as per Loving v Virginia.

That would do away with the need for 'domestic partnerships' as couples could marry in a state where it is legal and then live any where they choose...AS A MARRIED COUPLE.

There should never be more than the one classification for people who wish to enter a committed relationship. Why settle for dp's when what most want is marriage?

[Ms. Toad]

129. Only one state.

And that state places significant restrictions on the ability of out of state couples to be married there (at least one must be a resident of Massachusetts, for one).

Although I agree with the legal theory you are suggesting, putting it into practice will be challenging.

You will need a squeaky clean couple - who satisfy every element of the Massachusetts marriage statutes. A couple coming in and using a hotel or friend's house as an in-state address would not be a good test case, since the challenge could be thrown out because the marriage is invalid under the law of the state that created it. That couple would then need to move to another state to test the second state's laws.

It is unlikely (based on my personal experience) that a test case will be supported and/or funded by the national GLBT groups at the preliminary stages - so the couple will need significant financial resources and access to a very knowledgeable attorney in this relatively narrow area of law.

We sought assistance at the early stages of what turned into Ohio's test case on second parent adoptions - we were told to come back when it was at the appellate stage. At that stage, we had already spent money in the tens of thousands, and had very supportive attorneys who were not the best versed in this area of the law. I don't suspect it would be any different for this type of case.

The couple will also need significant willpower to go through with the test case - almost certainly from people in our own community. We were actively discouraged by national GLBT groups from pursuing our attempt to have our daughter have two legal parents. The timing wasn't right (it never will be), a bad decision would screw it up for everyone else who follows, etc. I suspect the discouragement would be even stronger this time - for good legal reasons. This Supreme Court is unlikely to apply Virginia v Loving to same gender marriages. A case that gets that far will almost certainly act as a barrier for years to come.

That does not mean that I, personally, would discourage someone from trying to test the law - even though I think the results would be bad in the current legal climate. Each couple has to decide for themselves whether it is right. As part of making that personal decision, I would encourage the couple to consider the impact their personal decision will have on other gay couples because it will make law, and probably bad law.

We are in a position to challenge this law on an international (similar) basis. Each of the 50 states recognizes marriages entered into in other countries - similar to its recognition of marriages entered into in another state. We have a legal (squeaky clean) marriage entered into in Canada. For now, we do not intend to be a test case - I don't know that we have ruled it out forever.

As to domestic partnerships - I'm with you. I have absolutely no interest in second-class legal recognition of my marriage. Separately is inherently unequal.

[China_cat]

131. Separately is inherently unequal.

And that is exactly what Loving v Virginia made clear...that just because the 'punishment' was meted out to both parties equally did not mean that the law was not discriminatory.

I see it sort of like drivers' licenses. Every state has its own regulations as to the age when you can drive, the tests you have to take in order to qualify, etc, but no state will deny you the right to drive there because your license is from another state (or even another country). Just because you didn't fulfill South Carolina's regulations (where you can drive at 14) doesn't mean that your license from California is invalid. And if a state tried that you can bet it would be struck down in about 2 seconds flat.

As for the finances for a test case, if someone ever does try it there are an awful lot of us who are heterosexual who would be more than happy to donate to a legal fund.

[sharesunited]

130. China_cat I agree and support that stance when I find it among candidates.

:shrug:

[King Coal]

93. See, they should take the cure.

[Baby Snooks]

195. But Hillary of course didn't support it

Just like she didn't support "don't ask, don't tell" and didn't support NAFTA and didn't support anything that at this point might cause problems for her. I don't recall but did anyone bother to ask Her Highness if universal health care would include domestic partners?

[Book Lover]

2. K&R

Good luck with your fight, gentlemen.

[susankh4]

3. Ya know....

I literally thank God, every day, that my son-in-law died in Massachusetts... and not in Ohio. It was a year after he married my son in our church. And a month after they made it legal in Boston.

I just don't know what we would have done if the benefits weren't there.

Jason died in a terrible accident. He was in a coma for a week. Here in OH, Luc would not even have been able to make end of life decisions for him. Maybe he would not even have been able to visit him in the ICU???

And then there's the whole thing about life insurance, and access to bank accounts, and on and on.

It is SO IMPORTANT that we work for the freedom to marry. And the right to have it recognized in every state!

Thanks for posting this. K&R.

[JackBeck]

6. Thank you for sharing this.

I type this response with tears welling-up in my eyes and with a cracking voice as I read your post to my husband.

I am so sorry for your son's loss, as well as yours. :grouphug:

My husband is from Cincinnati, as well and we almost moved there before the 2004 elections (work reasons). In a way, it was a blessing that everything fell through, especially after the passage of the 2004 anti-gay measures in Ohio.

His parents still struggle a bit with our relationship. I have to sleep in the guest room, even after being together for almost 11 years. The reason? We're not married, even though we got married in San Francisco, and had a ceremony in Brooklyn, which they were invited to, but didn't attend. Yet they tell me any chance hey get how much they love me. I struggle daily with this disconnect.

When it comes to marriage equality, I cannot support the notion of making all marriages "civil unions". I'm happy to see I've found another voice in solidarity for full marriage equality.

:pals:

[susankh4]

33. Thank you.

Jason's birthday would have been this Wednesday. He would have been 35 years old.

[unapatriciated]

192. here is another voice for full marriage equality.

separate is not equal, it is that simple.

[pinto]

25. Sorry for your loss susankh4, and thanks for posting. n/t

[myrna minx]

31. I am so sorry for your loss.

:hug: K&R.

[Kajsa]

34. Thank you, Susan.

My condolences to you, your son and the families.

Thanks so much for sharing your story with us.

:hug: :grouphug:

[selador]

4. you are kidding me right?

this is one of the most contentious and publically debated issues around. and

"It didn't even dawn on us that this would have an impact,"

how ignorant can you be? fwiw, i 100% support gay marriage, and i think it's disgusting that some jurisdictions don't recognize and give the same benefits to gay marriage as they do to straight.

i am also amazed that they planned a move to another state and didn;'t even RESEARCH THIS ISSUE before moving.

i certainly researched all sorts of legal issues before i moved to WA state, and i didn't have anything as personally important as domestic partner issues to research before i did.

simply amazing

[Zuiderelle]

14. Oh for god's sake. They thought it was a company benefit, and not geographical.

My company provides the same domestic partner benefits for all its employees no matter where they reside, so I can completely understand how someone might assume their company would do the same.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[devilgrrl]

28. Go easy, he hasn't left his basement in years, he didn't know!

:sarcasm:

[unapatriciated]

193. I agree - Who could do such a thing?...

My company also provides domestic partner benefits base on California Law and we have stores all over the US. We live and work in Georgia (right to work state) and they still apply CA labor standards. Their Company chose to use the law to their benefit in denying coverage.

[chixydix]

5. They moved to IDAHO and didn't expect any problems? ARRRGGHH

What MORONS.

I'm sorry but a LOT of my fellow gay people are really about as smart as bags of hammers.
:eyes:

[Toucano]

8. "But the sunsets are so FABULOUS!" n/t

[chixydix]

11. Yeah...at the fabulous beach.

:eyes:

[Growler]

9. They moved to IDAHO??

And they didn't think this would be a problem? WTF?!?

[JackBeck]

12. They were looking for some change, to help battle Ryan's depression

"Ryan and Martinelli met four years ago when Ryan was out of work and battling depression he developed after surviving the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center. Ryan worked on the 74th floor of the south tower and escaped after the north tower was struck first. Six of the 20 employees he managed at Morgan Stanley were killed."

The point of the article is that Martinelli still works for Konica, but the company is using Idaho law to take Ryan off of his insurance.

I guess LGBT Americans can only live in the gay ghettos of New York and San Franciso.

[chixydix]

13. No, we live every place, Jack. But when we do live in flyover country, we generally

understand the basics of diplomacy. You win friends by being good friends, not by being a provocative queen...in Peoria, Natchez or Scottsbluff.

Just saying' here...not defending the status quo but recognizing that it won't be changed by antagonizing peeps.
:-)

[Maddy McCall]

15. Wait a second! I've got some great friends in Natchez who are "provocative queens."

What are ya tryin' to say here?

:P

[chixydix]

17. Please tell them not to out me!

:rofl: :D


Hell, I don't even know what I -do- mean, actually. I guess it's just that for the last 50 years, I've figured if I wanted a woman, I'd go get a real one (and there've been plenty who figured to 'cure' me)...any allure of a guy acting like one has escaped me completely all this time.

[JackBeck]

16. "Provocative queen"?

Could you please explain?

[chixydix]

21. No offense intended...see my post # 17.

It's difficult to explain...


I just asked my SO if he agrees, he does. We are essentially "married" in just about every legal sense...that is we have established joint ownership of everything, made out foolproof wills, powers of attorney and such. Yes, it is something of a PITA to do all that but it is possible and fairly easy, actually...it doesn't carry the connotation of 'marriage' as considered by most of U.S. civil law, but we (and we only speak for US here) don't especially care about that. We have been together since 1981 and have the approval of everyone who matters to us. (Obviously anybody who doesn't approve doesn't matter) :D

Bottom line, the term (marriage) in and of itself doesn't much matter to us.

[Zuiderelle]

23. Marriage and all its rights that you CANNOT draw up in a legal paper may not matter to you,

but it matters to a whole lot of other people. Those papers and wills and powers of attorney go only a fraction of the way to providing the protections marriage provides.

[chixydix]

37. Well, I'm sorry but you are wrong. I am NOT defending the status quo, I'm saying

there are ways "around" it. What is not AUTOMATICALLY granted as a right CAN BE essentially obtained with a bit of legal maneuvering. One more time for the pragmatically impaired: I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT behind full marriage between any 2 consenting adults who want it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zuiderelle]

39. No, YOU are wrong. There are NOT ways around it. And what's your name stand for anyway?

A "play" on Dixie Chicks? "Chicks eat dicks"? :eyes:

If you're gay, and if you've gone to all that trouble to "get around it" then you know damn well that there's nothing we can do to even come close to the rights and protections straight married couples have simply by a "bit of legal maneuvering."

[chixydix]

43. Groan. The "name" doesn't mean anything...I was trying to think of one and heard

someone on the TeeVee say "Dixie Chicks" and I automatically applied a Spoonerism to it, as has been my obsessive proclivity for decades. I thought it sounded clever. If it does not meet with your approval, you are free to take me to court over it. (jeezusfuckingchrist, as if there aren't enough goddamn things wrong in the world, you have to get all bent over a fucking username) :eyes: :eyes:

But since you think I am lying (or so you are implying), how about producing an example of something we have NOT been able to address in a legal fashion. Rather than just bitching about the inequities in the system, we took steps to overcome them in the only way possible AT THIS TIME!\

[Ms. Toad]

48. Just a few . . .

Spousal social security benefits, health insurance on spouse's plan (my spouse does not work), adoption of "my" daughter by her other mother (which was expressly denied because our marriage is not recognized), federal and state tax benefits (because of our disparate incomes, I got hit with 5000+ in AMT taxes this year and EVERY year, we pay a few thousand extra in state taxes), my spouse's distribution from the family trust - if my spouse dies before the trust is distributed, all of her sharereverts to her siblings rather than to her daughter (the other sibling's is distributed to their children), inheritance tax (when I die, inheritance taxes must be paid on my estate before she receives what is left - as my spouse it would pass tax free). There are hundreds of rights which cannot be duplicated absent state recognition of our marriage.

[Zuiderelle]

55. Non taxed health benefits. Non-taxed inheritances. Pension and Social Security benefits.

And 1500 other things. It's impossible to overcome these inequities, and YOU KNOW IT. If you've done all that work to cover yourself as much as possible, YOU DEFINITELY KNOW IT.

[Laughing Mirror]

82. Suppose your husband was a foreigner

Since it is impossible to marry him in the US, please explain what steps you would take to bring him legally into the country so you could be together, rather than apart.

I'd really be interested in your response.

[susankh4]

41. That is true!

Dead on true. Any lawyer worth her salt will tell you as much.

[Ms. Toad]

51. Sorry, but any lawyer with any experience

in marriage law will tell you that it is impossible to recreate marriage without the participation of the state and federal governments. Marriage is a three party contract. Absent the third party (the state), the rights you obtain from the state as part of that bargain are not accessible to you. I have listed a just few above (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3086420#3087440 )- there are hundreds more.

(Edited - on rereading and trying to follow the threads, I think you may be saying the same thing I just said - if so, just take it as reinforcement!)

[susankh4]

72. Isn't that what I said?

[Ms. Toad]

81. On my first read, I thought you were saying the opposite,

Your post just replied to a previous one and said that's true, but didn't say what it was that was true. I thought I tracked it back as a reply to one which said you COULD create all the rights by drafting legal documents.

When I looked at it after posted my reply, it appeared I might not have tracked which post you were replying to correctly. That's why I added the parenthetical note at the bottom. :)

[mondo joe]

45. Then you ought to know you can't establish all the rights and respnsibilities of marriage by

contract.

I have the contracts - durable power of attorney, wills, as well as established joint ownership of anything worth owning. But that doesn't cover everything.

[Zuiderelle]

18. Is it "antogonizing peeps" simply to want health coverage?

And who's acting like a provocative queen? I don't understand your post at all.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zuiderelle]

22. Well.

Yeah. I suppose that makes sense.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zuiderelle]

26. Oh man, I hadn't even noticed the user name.

[devilgrrl]

27. How many alerts need to be sent?

It's not too obvious. :mad:

[Blue-Jay]

134. He used to post here as "trannyporn".

[uppityperson]

64. Are you still here?

Perhaps you need to either think before posting stuff like "You win friends by being good friends, not by being a provocative queen." and then having to go post after post explaining and defending, or else you need to not be posting.

[Midlodemocrat]

73. /

:applause:

[yardwork]

104. Expecting benefits to continue is being a "provocative queen?"

Flyover country?

Your post contains so many stereotypes it's hard to find the point, but I think I see it - us queer folk should shut up and be satisfied with what little we get, especially if we insist in living in one of the states other than California or Vermont.

Got it.

[susankh4]

32. Yes. And, there are actually companies ... even in OH....

that cover "domestic partners." Miami University, for instance. Or Procter & Gamble. So... it is NOT an unreasonable assumption. (Tho I, myself, would have looked into it... cuz I am a bit anal about that kinda thing.)

[JackBeck]

35. I would have done the research, as well.

But don't fault these guys for assuming Konica would continue the benefits, despite the move.

[susankh4]

38. I don't fault them at all.

It's a reasonable assumption... really. And, ya know... if I was from a progressive state like NJ I may NOT have questioned it. I may have assumed, as they did...

Being from Ohio, and Cincy of all places.... I am pretty danged clear on what one might face out in the big, bad U.S. of A.

[JackBeck]

42. I know you didn't fault them.

I should have clarified that after I posted, since I thought it may have come across that way. I was more addressing, I guess, those in this thread who have chosen to do so.

I've had my fair share of Cincy experience over the last ten years, so I get that part, for sure.

:hug:

[Ms. Toad]

53. Actually,

The number of insurance companies in Ohio that are willing to cover domestic partners decreased dramatically after the marriage discrimination amendment passed. I had done a search ahead of that and there were around a dozen. When our carrier went kaput, my company could initially not find a single company that was willing to cover domestic partners for businesses employing 50 or fewer employees. I was told by one of the companies that the amendment made it illegal to offer domestic partner coverage. That is, of course, nonsense - but it was part of the script they were told to read when faced with an inquiry - and I expect it was a convenient excuse to drop policies they didn't really want to offer in the first place

With the help of an insurance agent who had some contacts within one of the companies, we were able to convince ONE company (with horrible rates and an even worse reputation) to provide coverage to our firm - otherwise, even though my company was committed to offering domestic partner coverage we were on the verge of having to go without it because the insurance companies were not required to provide the coverage my company requested.

[susankh4]

85. What a terrible shame.

Ohio sucks. What can I say?

[xmas74]

138. I work for a corporation that offers

domestic partner benefits and I live in Missouri-one of the worst states to live in if you are GLBT.

If I were a lesbian or bisexual and I transferred to another state with my partner I would assume that my benefits would still exist.

[dysfunctional press]

67. how'd that work out for ryan...? is he still depressed?

my wife and i had toyed with the idea of moving to idaho several years back...it took me about 10 minutes of research to realize that there was no way in hell that i'd ever move there.

[JackBeck]

68. I have no clue, the article doesn't address your snark.

You pretty much are saying they made a bad choice, therefore should suffer the consequences.

Your response is rude, to say the least.

Do you know the reasons surrounding their choice to relocate?

I'm barely outraged anymore at the judgment professed by some so-called progressives on DU anymore.

[dysfunctional press]

96. "You pretty much are saying they made a bad choice, therefore should suffer the consequences."

ummmm...isn't that how life is supposed to work? :shrug:

or should idaho be expected to change it's laws to accomodate them, so that they don't have to suffer the consequences of their "bad choice"?...:eyes:

[JackBeck]

97. Not how I view life.

Guess that's the difference between you and I.

And the article isn't about changing Idaho's laws, it's about why Konica dropping the insurance after the move.

As others have pointed out in this thread, which he article also states, this is extremely rare.

The couple is getting help from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is one of several groups that considers their case rare when compared to same-sex discrimination lawsuits across the country.

"I'm not sure there's been anything like this," said Tara Borelli, a staff attorney for the gay civil rights group Lambda Legal.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

100. That's an extreme example.

But in the world I live in, I believe that people should learn from their mistakes, not suffer punishment. Does this apply to everyone? Of course not. But it's what informs my frame of reference.

[dysfunctional press]

101. "Does this apply to everyone? Of course not."...oh- so it only applies to you, then?

:eyes:

the "punishment" is how people learn from their mistakes- without the consequences, nothing is learned.

why am i not surprised that you haven't learned that...? :shrug:

[JackBeck]

102. That's not how I roll, homie.

I don't believe the outcome should be "punishment" for every single mistake a person makes.

[dysfunctional press]

112. well, then you're probably better off in your fairy tale-world...

and out of touch with reality.

[JackBeck]

141. Yup, that's me.

I'm out of touch with reality.

:rofl:

[dysfunctional press]

150. apparently.

nt

[mondo joe]

106. While I think it's life that some bad choices will have bad consequences - such

as, if you hit your hand really hard with a hammer it will really hurt - it's rather a far jump from there to say bad choices should have bad consequences.

Sometimes those consequences are arbitrary and unnecessary.

And some people have suffered enough arbitrary consequences already.

[dysfunctional press]

115. and when people have nobody but themselves to blame for their poor choices...

then who should suffer the consequences...? :shrug:

[mondo joe]

116. I think when people suffer the consequences of injustice or bigotry, it's

harder for me to think it's something they SHOULD suffer. Those are the times I think when we are called on as their fellows to help mitigate or eliminate those consequences when we can.

I'm still distinguishing between inherent and arbitrary consequences, though.

[dysfunctional press]

119. take the op, for instance...it wouldn't have taken much effort to research something so major...

as a cross-country move. the laws of a state aren't any kind of secret, and the hr department at konica would have definitely been able to answer questions about policy.

because they didn't do the basic and necessary research into their move- they are the ones that suffer. it's the consequences for their actions and in-actions.
should konica be forced to change their legal policy, or idaho forced to change their state laws because of it?

[mondo joe]

125. With regard to the OP specifically:

His benefits weren't granted by the state but by the employer. Sure he could have checked it out but it's a bullshit thing to have to do.

As a matter of fact I think Idaho ought to improve.

I'm not about to blame a gay couple for the consequences of unjust laws or policies.

[dysfunctional press]

153. the benefits are granted by the employer, based on the laws of the state.

and if you really think that idaho "ought to improve", perhaps you should move there, become part of the state's electorate, and work for the changes you'd like to see.

[mondo joe]

158. Are they based on the laws of the state? There are employers in states without

any recognition of same sex partners who provide such benefits.

State Rep. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise, who is the state's only openly gay legislator, says she is covered by a Wells Fargo insurance policy with her partner of eight years. So being in the state is plainly does not necessitate elimination of the benefit.

As to Idaho: I do think they ought to treat their citizens equally. I don't think that's a shocking or bold attitude. But I have my own work on that front in another state. :-)

[JackBeck]

142. I really enjoy reading your posts.

And continue to learn from your amazing ability to rationalize and debate certain issues.

[mondo joe]

173. That's terribly nice of you.

I hate to sound like I'm just bouncing a compliment back - but I always look forward to your posts. I feel entertained and enlightened when I read them.

[JackBeck]

178. ....

:pals:

[Tesha]

78. LGBT Americans can live pretty much easily anywhere in New England.

(Except Rhode Island, IIRC).

Or several places on the West Coast.

But why on Earth would anyone expect that the Republican
stronghold of IDAHO would be welcoming to them? And grant
all those rights they just walked away from?

Really, we're at least two different countries: The old
USA and New Dumbfuckistan, and they moved right to the
heart of New Dumbfuckistan.

Tesha

[yardwork]

103. A nice way for the gub'mint to support a survivor of 9/11.

[Skittles]

75. this struck me as EXTREMELY ODD

that they 1) did not check regardless of where they were moving and 2) HELLO - IDAHO?

[yardwork]

109. Why would they expect their employer to drop their benefits?

Would anyone think that their employer would drop their benefits just because they moved to another site? These aren't state benefits, they're employment benefits.

[Skittles]

132. oh, I would definitely check it out

AND I'M NOT EVEN GAY

[nichomachus]

36. It may have to do with the insurance company, too

The insurance company involved may be the one at fault, too. They may not offer the partner benefit in states without laws covering it -- so the employer may not be at fault, except for choosing a shitty company.

If there is a history of depression, the insurance company would be more than eager to get someone off the rolls.

This is why domestic partnerships or civil unions are not almost as good as marriage, as even some liberals were shouting a few years ago.

In fact, we're considering dissolving our domestic partnership -- now that I no longer need health care benefits -- because the legal and financial drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. Our taxes were higher this year -- and filing taxes was a nightmare.

If you live in CA, you have to do federal returns as single people. Then, you have to complete a third federal return -- a phony one that you will never file -- as if you were married. Then, you use the phony joint return as the basis for your state return because CA requires you to file as married people.

[JackBeck]

50. Many people don't realize

that same-sex couples offered domestic partner health insurance get that benefit taxed as extra income.

Welcome to DU, btw. :hi:

[littlebit]

80. Ain't that the truth

we are being charged out the back end for our insurance.

[knitter4democracy]

44. This is why we need equal rights for all.

It shouldn't matter where they live. All that should matter is that they're married. That's it. What a disgusting thing to happen to them.

Survivor of 9/11, and this is how he's treated?! Disgusting.

[depakid]

47. They moved to Idaho and it didn't "dawn on them?"

That's almost difficult to believe. Washington and Oregon it ain't.

[mondo joe]

49. It was an employer benefit, not a state benefit. They assumed the exact same employer would

continue to provide the same benefit.

I don't think it's unreasonable.

[depakid]

52. Idaho has a well earned reputation

that I would think any same sex (or mixed race) couple would seriously tale into account.

[mondo joe]

62. Again, it's not a state benefit. It's the exact same company - it's not unreasonable to

think the benefits are the same across the board.

Less reasonable to not check it out, perhaps.

[depakid]

66. I see your point, too

Sad that Idaho became such a haven for intolerance and irrationality. Some of us may not remember or have read- but the currently prevailing attitudes weren't always in place.

Frank Church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Church

William Borah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edgar_Borah

and Cecil Andrus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_D._Andrus

They and others like them all hailed from Idaho.

[Toasterlad]

54. Sorry, Mondo, But I DO Think It's Unreasonable...And I'm Surprised You Don't.

I can't imagine a gay couple not researching exactly what would happen to their benefits if they moved to the next town over, let alone across the country, let ALONE Idaho. Until there is equality at the federal level, we're at the mercy of every town and state we're in.

As far as the company benefits go, ANYONE who works in corporate America should know that no matter how friendly the people you work with are, the company is really only concerned with one thing: the company. And if they can save some green by exploiting state law and cutting the benefits of a guy who's been working there for 50 years and never missed a day, they'll do it in a heartbeat.

[JackBeck]

56. None of us can know, for certain, the situation they were in when making this decision.

We can assume, per the article, that they were looking for a less taxing environment for Ryan.

Was their move influenced by financial hardships? I can personally offer that families are fleeing New Jersey at the moment due to outrageous property tax increases. Do we know if this influenced their decision? Of course not, since the article does not address that issue. But what we do know is, "The two-story home Robert Ryan, 42, shares with his partner, Ralph Martinelli, 53, overlooks a quaint suburb west of Boise, a rural landscape of ruddy hills that doesn't seem quite as welcoming as it once did." Sounds like they were looking a place to find some solace.

I prefer to give this couple the benefit of the doubt, rather than cast judgment. You or I may have done the "research", yet that doesn't mean we should hold this couple accountable for the situation they now find themselves. For all we know (and we could come up with "what ifs" all day long) they may have been reassured by Konica that no action would be taken once they moved, only to the company backtrack after the move.

[Toasterlad]

57. Well, They DID Say...

..."It didn't even dawn on us that this would have an impact.", which I took to mean that they didn't research thoroughly. I'm sure the article would have mentioned it if the insurance company or the corporation told them they'd be taken care of, and they weren't.

Of course, they shouldn't have HAD to research it; they shouldn't have had to do any more research than any straight married couple should have to do when moving. But given the reality we live in, they should have checked ahead.

[JackBeck]

58. We both know that we're pretty much on the same page when

it comes to these issues. But it's possible they didn't have the resources or state of mind to check ahead, which is why I give them the benefit of th doubt.

His partner has serious mental health issues related to working in the World Trade Center on 9/11. This is where I give them a pass.

[Toasterlad]

60. Oh, I Have Sympathy For Them, Don't Get Me Wrong.

Just because I think they SHOULD have done more research, doesn't mean it doesn't sicken me that they should HAVE to.

[Tesha]

79. Next time, perhaps someone will suggest "Burlington, VT".

> We can assume, per the article, that they were looking for a less taxing environment for Ryan.

Next time, perhaps someone will suggest "Burlington, VT".

Tesha

[mondo joe]

59. Permit me to say more, please:

I think it's reasonable for an employee to think the employer's benefits are consistent even in other offices.

Is it reasonable to move on that assumption without verifying it?

Maybe, maybe not. I like to think I'd verify --- but I'm a suspicious fellow.

[slackmaster]

63. Surely they knew their NJ domestic partnership would not be recognized in other states

Not to stir this thing up, but it is an unusual arrangement as the whole country goes.

[mondo joe]

65. Certainly - but the benefit was from the employer, not the state.

There are employers in states without civil unions that offer same sex couple benefits.

It may not have been the wisest assumption, but I can see how they could have made it.

[Midlodemocrat]

74. My employer does. Regardless of the state in which you live.

It's one of the reasons I adore working here. The company is centrally located in Manhattan, but there are field folks across the country.

[dflprincess]

94. My employer does as well

The company is based in Nashville, TN but domestic partners are eligible for benefits at all locations.

[Zuiderelle]

95. My employer does as well.

Frankly, I think it's much more unusual for a company that has adopted domestic partner benefits to change them from state to state.

[Ms. Toad]

89. It may not even be a matter of the company -

The same insurance companies do not necessarily even make similar policies available to everyone within the state - let alone across state borders.

There are a number of insurance companies who offer domestic partner coverage within Ohio, for example, as long as you have 50 or more employees. Drop below 50 and the same insurance company will yank the coverage - and there is nothing the employer can do but try to find another insurance company. Insurance companies (at least on Ohio) are not required to provide domestic partner coverage just because the employer wants to provide it. That may well be the case in Idaho - and if the employing company uses a single carrier it may be a choice between changing insurance carriers for everyone in order to accommodate one couple or saying "tough luck" to that couple.

I don't know that is the case with the OP - I just know that even with the best employer intentions, there may be nothing the employer can do (My partner is only covered because an insurance agent was very effective in convincing one insurance company to change its policies - my employers were about to give up after very diligent research turned up not a single insurance company willing to provide DP coverage since state law did not require them to offer it for small companies).

[slackmaster]

61. They could have asked their HR department

:shrug:

I work for a subsidiary of a multinational company that has presences in multiple Canadian provinces, England, Scotland, Germany, and several US states. Benefits do vary quite a bit from one location to another.

[JackBeck]

69. And where in this article does it state they did or didn't approach HR?

[UALRBSofL]

84. Some companies cover domestic partners whether you live

in Vermont or Iowa. Home Depot has domestic partner benefits wherever there stores are located. That's why I favor Home Depot over Lowes.

[susankh4]

86. Nice to know about Home Depot!

Lowes losing my business now....

[krkaufman]

70. "It didn't even dawn on us that this would have an impact,"

Of course it *shouldn't* have an impact, but have these guys had their heads in the sand for the last 8 years?

[Tesha]

77. I'm sorry, but *HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET*???

They moved from the heart of the Blue Zone to the heart
(or at least the colon) of the *RED ZONE* and they didn't
give a thought to anything like this happening?

Tesha

[yardwork]

105. Why would they expect their company to drop their benefits?

The article says, "The couple was stunned when Ryan was dropped from the company insurance plan."

Why would anyone expect that moving from one state to another, but remaining employed by the same company, would result in one's employer's rescinding a benefit? Who else would have to put up with this?

[mondo joe]

107. Precisely. Why should anyone expect their employer to rescind benefits just

because you're working at a different branch?

[yardwork]

108. I'm really offended at the many suggestions here that gay people should just expect this!

Not only are we discriminated against, people seem to think that we should just expect the discrimination and put up with it!

[Tesha]

110. I don't expect you to put up with it, but Jeezus on a hobby horse, ....

> Not only are we discriminated against, people seem
> to think that we should just expect the discrimination
> and put up with it!

I don't expect you to put up with it, but Jeezus on a
hobby horse, haven't the last, oh, six thousand years
taught you to expect this? I mean, putting aside the
whole gay question, essentially *EVERY COMPANY IS IN
IT FOR THE MONEY* and they only treat their employees
as nicely as they absolutely have to. And if State "I"
allows them to cheap out on benefits in some way compared
to state "N", most companies will jump at the chance to
cheap out.

There's a reason why blue type people congregate in
blue places rather than red places.

Tesha

[yardwork]

111. I'm supposed to live in a blue state because I'm gay??????

You are offensive.

[JackBeck]

113. Here ya' go:

"a nationwide effort led by the Task Force results in U.S. Census figures that show same-sex, unmarried partner households in 99.3 percent of all counties in the U.S"

http://thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/timeline

[Tesha]

114. Yes. Frankly, YES. You should live where you won't be hated for what you are.

(Well, unless masochism is your thing, I suppose.)

Tesha

[mondo joe]

117. Well some of us would just have to kill ourselves then. There was a time not

very long ago when there was no state blue enough for a GLBT person to feel safe or accepted.

[Tesha]

121. Yes, that explains the giant rainbow flag...

Yes, that explains the giant rainbow flag that has flown
over the Castro for how many decades now? Or the fact that
Burlington, VT has been lesbian-friendly for at least as
long.

Tesha

[mondo joe]

126. Well, I guess all the GLBT people from the world over could have moved to the Castro.

But I think they did better by working forchange where they were.

[Tesha]

135. Obviously, though, change has been coming faster in some places than in others. (NT)

[mondo joe]

136. Who else is to blame for their own treatment for not living in the Castro? Matthew Shepherd?

Or maybe some Souther black folks for not all migrating to a happier place?

[Tesha]

145. Maybe if all the Blue people left the Red areas, life would be better for everyone.

The Blue people would be happy living amongst other
Blue people who celebrate diveristy and the Red folks
could sink fully into their swamp of ignorance and
"hatred of the other".

I'm starting to believe that life is too short to
tryt to change some minds that don't want to be
changed. (And, BTW, there's now scientific research
emerging that Red people are that way because of genetics,
and you simply *CAN'T* change them in any fundamental
way.)

Tesha

[mondo joe]

149. I've never been a fan of segregaton, or of blaming people for being the victims of others' bigotry

or wrong doing.

The idea that people don't change is also quite wrong - not to mention depressing.

The trend is in the right direction - it always has been.

[Tesha]

154. Unfortunately, hard evidence now suggests that people really *DON'T* change.

This year, we'll be running a very-large-scale experiment
trying to discover whether Americans can actually change;
I'm not very hopeful for the results going our way.

Tesha

[mondo joe]

157. Given that 10 years ago there was not a state in the US with civil unions or same sex marriage,

but today there are a handful, indicates you are wrong.

Given that women once had no vote at all but today are holding office indicates you are wrong.

In my state, Washington, after better than a decade of the legislature stonewalling a domestic partner benefit, it was passed and then enhanced in two years.

You are wrong.

[Tesha]

159. The states that have CUs or marriages are exactly the places you'd expect to have them.

All of New England save only Rhode Island.
Extend the tolerant region down to New Jersey.

Ecotopia.

But the South and the "heartland" has moved
firmly *AGAINST* such things.

Wake me when Alabama allows CUs or equal marriages.

Tesha

[mondo joe]

160. Again, they DIDN'T have them. Would the GLBT people have been better off

moving to the Castro? Or staying to work to improve things at home.

Alabama will eventually recognize same sex marriage - though it will probably take a supreme court case to make it so.

[yardwork]

118. You know, neanderthals who actually hate people for being gay are actually somewhat rare.

Even in the red state in which I was born and raised, and the red state in which I currently reside and have resided for the past thirty years, it's rare to encounter an attitude quite so bigoted, small-minded, and simply poisonous as the one expressed in your post.

I'd rather take my chances in my little blue town in my big red state than live among people like you, that's for sure.

edit: typo

[Tesha]

122. As you wish.

But don't come piss and whine here later when it
doesn't work out so well.

Tesha

[mondo joe]

128. But the loss of benefits isn't because of Idaho law.

There are employers who provide same sex couple benefits regardless of state.

Their issue is with the employer, far more than it is with Idaho.

[JackBeck]

143. fwiw

most LGBT citizens and our supporters don't refer to speaking up and out for equal rights as "piss and whine".

[Tesha]

144. Tough. If you're an adult and you *CHOSE* to step into an awful situation...

Tough. If you're an adult and you *CHOSE* to step into
an awful situation, you recognize that you're there by
your own free choice.

And if, afterwards, you complain about how awful it is,
I will tell you that you are pissing and whining about
it when you should be *DOING SOMETHING* about it instead.
It's the same advice I give my now-grown children.

Tesha

[mondo joe]

148. But the couple in the OP didn't CHOOSE to step into this situation - they didn't know

their employer would rescind benefits.

To make a choice you have to KNOW the implications.

[Tesha]

152. Of course they chose to step into this situation: they chose to move to a state that...

...didn't recognize (and probably official loathes)
their relationship.

They chose, even if they chose ... poorly.

Tesha

[mondo joe]

156. The state didn't determine the benefits. The employer elected to have different benefits

in different areas.

There are employers in states that don't recognize same sex couples, and there have been for some time. You seem to feel the benefits naturally would not be provided in that state - but it's not natural or expected - it's quite arbitrary.

[Tesha]

161. The State of Idaho isn't passive on this issue.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=67235

Idaho AG says city's 'domestic partnership' policy is illegal

The Idaho attorney general's office says the City of Moscow
cannot legally offer domestic partnership benefits -- a
rendering that is being applauded by one of the state's
pro-family groups that has worked diligently to protect
traditional marriage in the Gem State.

The Moscow, Idaho, city council voted last December to
extend health insurance benefits to so-called domestic
partners of city employees. The council took the action
despite an earlier legal review and decision by the
University of Idaho against offering such benefits.

"They looked at the plain language of Idaho's Constitution
and their attorneys concluded that the university was not
permitted to do that," says Bryan Fischer, executive director
of the Idaho Values Alliance. "So, we were surprised when
the Moscow City Council came to a different conclusion."

The pro-family advocate explains that his group exerted
a considerable amount of effort in 2006 to amend the state
constitution to define and protect marriage and to prohibit
cities from granting legal recognition to what he calls
"marriage counterfeits."

<more>

[mondo joe]

162. Idaho employers DO provide same sex partner benefits.

The Idaho Department of Insurance does not track how many firms offer domestic partner benefits, either to opposite or same-sex partners, said spokeswoman Tricia Carney. But she says such benefits are allowed.

''It's legal in the state,'' Carney said. ''But we don't keep track of which companies offer it.''

Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, helped draft the Idaho amendment that bans same-sex marriage. He used the legislation to threaten legal action against the Moscow City Council in northern Idaho after the council approved domestic benefits for city employees in December.

The amendment was meant to protect the institution of marriage, not restrict companies that already cover same-sex couples, Fischer said.

''There are companies in Idaho who have been doing this for years,'' Fischer said. ''That's between them and their employees.''


http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2008/03/31/1&page=4

[Tesha]

163. But the state, as a whole, passed the constitutional change. DID THIS NOT SEND A CLUE TO THE DIMWITS

in the original article?

Tesha

[mondo joe]

164. Since employers in that state DO provide same sex partner benefits, and since the employer

in question already DID provide that benefit, I can well imagine why they'd think it would be maintained.

I continue to believe there is greater benefit in providing suppor rater than scorn to people who bear the burden of unequal, unfair treatment.

[yardwork]

165. So black people who "choose to live" in the United States were at fault

when they were lynched and otherwise discriminated against?

[mondo joe]

172. I was also thinking, the Lovings chose to live in Virginia where their marriage

was not recognized.

I guess some here would say they deserved whatever persecution they suffered for it, but I for one am gladthey did it and fought for their equality.

[JackBeck]

179. That's an excellent example.

I've been thinking throughout the day about this meme that we should move to where it's "Bluer", and I can't stop thinking about the many anti-gay crimes that still occur in those areas. Bashings can and will happen from Christopher Street to the Castro, and any place in between. But that's just me whining, I guess.

[mondo joe]

180. The idea that every minority group should just gather together in the safest place and

then not DARE to complain when they are mistreated seems like a very odd stance on any progressive board.

We've had much change because people stood their ground and fought for equality. And we've improved legal standing nationally - not just in one city or state - by doing so.

[JackBeck]

191. Fun fact, in case you missed it:

"a nationwide effort led by the Task Force results in U.S. Census figures that show same-sex, unmarried partner households in 99.3 percent of all counties in the U.S"

http://thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/timeline

And that's just partnered households.

[xmas74]

140. Exactly.

My employer supposedly offers domestic partner benefits no matter what state they are in. Kinda makes me worry about someone I know who is transferring to another state soon.

[Tesha]

146. Please note that your employer can change the terms of the deal at any time.

Laws are a bit less mutable.

Tesha

[xmas74]

147. Though most wouldn't think that.

And why would they? They would still think that since coverage by the same company was provided at one site the same would apply.

I live in one of those "flyover" states. I have friends who work for certain companies because they offer domestic partner benefits. While this doesn't immediately concern me it does concern my friends. (And therefore it does concern me-you can see where this is going.)

I'd just hate to think that they could take a transfer to another site in another state and then have their benefits denied to them. Either the company denies them as a whole or they grant them as a whole-location shouldn't have to fit into the equation.

[Tesha]

151. But that's not the way that most "modern" American companies work.

They do the absolute minimum needed to retain the work force.

Tesha

[Bluebear]

120. Hence the problem with candidates saying "it should be up to the States"

[kwenu]

124. Isn't that what the Clintons said??

[Toasterlad]

133. Christ, Is EVERYTHING the Clinton's Fault? You Forgot to Mention the Blow Job.

I can't WAIT til this stupid election is over and I can read a fucking thread on DU that doesn't devolve into a slap fight over which of these asshole candidates is worse.

[Tesha]

155. DADT and DOMA definitely *ARE* the Clinton's fault. (NT)

[kwenu]

168. DoMA is law thanks to the Clintons. It's going to be here after the elections are over.

Open your mind. Some issues are real issues.

[mondo joe]

171. Maybe we gay people can all just pray to be converted to heterosexuality

and then it won't be an issue.

Run that by Obama's advisors, would you?

[kwenu]

175. No. I think I'll just let you regain some composure.

And hope you can see your own contradictions as well as you think you see everyone else's.

[mondo joe]

176. Which contradictions would those be?

And what do you think DOMA has to do with benefits of a non married couple?

[kwenu]

181. Here goes.

Your statements have been generous in painting Obama as some sort of right wing religious nut who is anti-gay. The Clintons have permanently stripped gays of the number one civil rights issue affecting gays for the last 20 years, yet it's Obama that is the subject of your criticism. That sounds absolutely crazy to me but you're entitled to your opinion regardless of the mental gymnastics you have to perform in your head to make that make sense.

My prior statements about the Clintons and DOMA is fact. Period. Independent of the election and capable of standing as just and proper criticism alone with no relation to Obama. For the record, I didn't treat this thread as a GD:P thread but was addressing what I see as the problem with inconsistent regulation of domestic partnership rights between varying states. I'm not going to go back and repeat what I've already stated before in this thread regarding DoMA because that's just a circular discussion.

Hope this clarifies my position if nothing else.

[mondo joe]

183. Oh let's see, point by point:

"Your statements have been generous in painting Obama as some sort of right wing religious nut who is anti-gay."

To the contrary: I have never said Obama is anti gay. I don't think he IS anti gay. This thread isn't about Obama anyway - I'm not the one who introduced what should have been a GD: P point.

"The Clintons have permanently stripped gays of the number one civil rights issue affecting gays for the last 20 years, yet it's Obama that is the subject of your criticism."

"The Clintons" did no such thing - for one thing "the Clintons" weren't president Bill, Clinton was. For another - assuming you refer to DOMA - it has affected gays not much in 20 years. Only one state has granted same sex marriage, and that only recently. So to the degree that Massachusetts marriages are not federally recognized, that is a problem.

As I pointed out in another subthread you ignored, DOMA has nothing to do with THIS case because the couple in this case is not married in ANY state to begin with.

But DOMA was the ticket to avoid a constitutional amendment which truly would have stripped us of rights for a long time to come, as constitutional amendments are very hard to reverse. DOMA was an ugly way to avoid a greater tragedy, and it is not - as you say - permanent. In fact both Dem contenders are prepared to reverse it.

Obama and Clinton score equally on GLBT issues per Human Rights Campaign, so that's a non issue. But I - and some other GLBT people - are not happy with what we perceive to be one candidate's kowtowing to certain anti gay factions and allies. You may disregard that if you wish.

So now you can see that these are not contradictions.

[kwenu]

184. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Mondo Joe said:

"DOMA was an ugly way to avoid a greater tragedy, and it is not - as you say - permanent."



All I can say is just WOW!!!! How that thought can reside in a GLBT person's brain is just astounding to me.

[mondo joe]

185. If you don't understand it's because you don't want to.

What's worse - DOMA, a federal law that can overturned or reversed by at least 2 branches of the federal government, or a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage which is MUCH harder to reverse and which can't be overturned by the courts?

If you can't see why DOMA was preferable if it prevented the amendment, you aren't thinking it through clearly.

Or you're more interested in scoring political hack marks than you are about the real lives of GLBT people.

[kwenu]

187. Joe.

It's a pyrrhic victory if you're going to call it a victory at all. The result in every practical and real sense is the same. I do not share your certainty of ease in repealing DoMA. To argue that DOMA was a logical solution tells me that you are probably very young, very naive or both. I don't see either Obama, Hillary or the U.S. Congress expending the political capital it will take to undo DoMA. They barely have the capital to take on immigration and the Iraq war.

[mondo joe]

188. I never called it a victory. Try reading what I wrote instead of making thing up.

The result is nowhere near the same - DOMA can be overturned. Both Dem candidates are on the record as willing to sign off on it. The court can overturn it.

Constitutional amendments are not so easily reversed. Do you know that?

You continue to ignore that DOMA was the alternative to the WORSE constitutional amendment, and the Repubs had a vetoproof majority anyway. Similarly, in this thread you ignore the fact that DOMA has zero to do with this case because the couple in question was never married in ANY state.

If you actually cared about GLBT people you'd know these things.

[kwenu]

189. Joe.

For your sake, I hope you're absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong.

[mondo joe]

190. When you care as much about real GLBT lives as making political scratch, when

you use facts the way you use talking points, it will be a better day.

[JackBeck]

194. I totally agree with you:

And I disagree with both candidates on this issue:

PGN: How would you respond to those friends if they asked you why they can’t get married?

HC: What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn’t have to get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make, among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time.

http://www.epgn.com/

[kwenu]

123. Not the most insightful couple but they can thank the Clintons approval of DoMA for sure.

[mondo joe]

127. Why? DOMA has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Please keep your ignorant GD: P crap where it belongs.

[Bluebear]

137. You said it.

[kwenu]

167. Said what?

[kwenu]

166. There may be ignorance but it's not mine. The legal marriage rights of every

male/female couple in the U.S. is federally protected in every state and territory in the same manner as the state in which the male/female couple were married. This doesn't apply to same-sex couples because under the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) states can pick and choose whether they will honor same-sex domestic partnerships. DoMA was signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton. His wife Hillary is currently running for president. Since we have a bit of a patchwork of laws dealing with same-sex relationships, most domestic partners, I hope, would check to see what the effect of moving would have on critical health care coverage. So I disagree with you completely. DoMA has a lot to do with this because it authorizes each state to do whatever it wants. Since you think my statements are crap, I'd like to see your explanation for your position. :hi:

[mondo joe]

170. The couple in question is not married.

The couple in question would have no greater legal position if DOMA never happened, because they are not married to begin with.

DOMA has nothing to do with them,.

Furthermore, the elimination of the benefit in this case was not the doing of the state but the employer.

There might be some case some time somewhere where DOMA would play such a role - but this isn't it.

[JerseygirlCT]

139. Maybe naive of them not to check that their move wouldn't afford

their company an out.

But more importantly, an excellent illustration of why CUs are NOT equal to marriage, and why marriage is the ONLY fair solution. If they had been married in NJ, Idaho, and their company, would have to recognize that relationship, no matter where they lived.

[kwenu]

169. I have a slight disagreement. Even if they were married it would be up to the individual state.

That's what DoMA is all about. It defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Calling the union between same sex couples "marriage" doesn't automatically change anything.

[JerseygirlCT]

182. That's just what I'm talking about

No special names, no special arrangements. Marriage, period. Like any other marriage, legally speaking.

I don't think calling a CU "marriage" is enough, either. I completely agree. DOMA laws need to be declared unconstitutional, and marriage needs to be for any two adults.

I'm married - married in PA, lived in VA at the time, now live in CT. No question, regardless of where I live in the US that my marriage is fully legal and fully recognized. How the hell can anyone entertain the notion that, say, a CT CU is the same as that? Someone here with a CU can't have that marriage recognized outside of CT dependably. We've already seen the day to day difficulties, even though the CUs are supposed to be the "same" as marriage in CT. (Like H&R Block, for instance).

In short, I don't think we're disagreeing, lol. I'm for full rights for GLBT - including marriage rights. The same ones I enjoy.

[mondo joe]

186. But they weren't married in ANY state so DOMA is not applicable. Furthermore, they

were not denied the benefit by the state government but by the same employer who granted the benefit elsewhere by choice.

[noonwitch]

174. I can't believe they didn't know

Very few states have those kind of arrangements-Michigan doesn't, even if some companies provide benefits to partners.

If they actually thought Idaho was one of the states that did allow for the registering of domestic partnerships, they have to be pretty clueless.

I am not commenting on whether there should be such arrangements, so don't flame me for that. I don't support domestic partnerships because I support gay marriage.

[mondo joe]

177. The benefit wasn't a state mandated benefit. Many states - even Idaho - have employers

who provide domestic partner benefits.

I don't see any suggestion that they thought Idaho had civil unions - just that they thought the benefit package with the same employer would be constant.