Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Wag
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Bet the gays in Taxachusetts will be screaming bloody murder.
Nope. They're shouting "hallelujah!"
A homosexual-rights group in the state insists the policy is unfair because the decision to marry still is more difficult for homosexual couples.
Michele Granda, staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders contends there still are "layers of discrimination" such as federal tax benefits not offered to same-sex couples and restrictions on international adoptions.
Some couples say they aren't ready to marry just because a longstanding barrier to marriage suddenly was lifted, Granda told the Globe.
"This is a civil rights battle, and it's going to take a matter of time but we are taking steps forward," she said.
Link
What is your point? In this thread you seem to be hinting that gay people are professional victims who will never cease bitching and moaning about unfair treatment. But you don't have the balls to come right out and say that. Please express an opinion you are willing to own and defend. All you've done with the above link is demonstrate that there is a diversity of opinion within the gay community. That's not hard to do. Here is a clip of commentary from the (gay, male) blogger at Independent Gay Forum *criticising* GLAD's suggestion that domestic partnership benefits should be kept for unmarried cohabiting same-sex couples (despite them now having access to marriage in Massachusetts):
Wanting Their Marriage Cake and Eating It, Too?
http://www.indegayforum.org/
December 10, 2004
Massachusetts companies, some of which pioneered domestic-partner benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners, said they are now withdrawing them for reasons of fairness: If gays can now marry, they should no longer receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that were not made available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples, reports the Boston Globe.
For those who believe that "marriage lite" alternatives actually weakened marriage, that's good news. But the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) of New England argues that taking away partner benefits for the unwed is discriminatory. Way to get across the message that gays want to strengthen marriage by joining it, GLAD!
-- Stephen H. Miller"
In response to the above comment, "Toby" (I assume Toby is gay, most of the readers of indegayforum.com are gay at any rate) writes:
"How is it discriminatory if hetrosexual couples are not getting benefits before they get married? It is exactly a "want your cake - eat it too" argument. The same rules should apply to gays and straights. Isn't that what the fight is all about? GLAD, HRC and all interest groups who advocate against this simple principal of "equality" and support special treatment defeat their own cause. Toby"
I think if you asked most gays, they would have to agree it is appropriate to end the domestic partnership scheme now they are able to marry in Massachusetts. FWIW I'm another queer who thinks it is OK to eliminate these domestic partnership benefits in that state in the interests of equality (yes, I don't live there, and it's none of my business, really - but hey, everone else is expressing an opinion
🙂. That is what equality demands. Altho actually I think the domestic partnership program should be extended to cohabiting heterosexual couples, instead of just cancelling it for cohabiting same-sex couples.
