The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Same Sex Marriage: Some Choices Limited

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,437

    Default Same Sex Marriage: Some Choices Limited

    NY Times
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/bu...ines&emc=tha24

    I really find this kind of fascinating ... always the unintended consequences of legislation.

    Some employers were providing health insurance to same sex domestic partners, but now that the law permits these people to marry, the companies are requiring that they marry to continue to receive benefits.

    That doesn't seem unreasonable ... if heterosexual couples must be married to receive such benefits, then if same-sex couples are now "equal", then the rules should be the same?

    But now some of these same-sex couples don't want to marry! If they want to adopt a child from an organization that will not consider a same-sex couple ... it's better for them not to marry to enhance adoption possibilities.

    When it comes to adopting a child, couples may run into trouble if they are trying to adopt from a place that restricts same-sex married couples from adopting. Having one parent adopt while still single may be easier. “If you want to be able to answer honestly in paperwork, multiple interviews and background checks, then you won’t want to get married,” Ms. Taylor said, adding that many foreign countries ban adoptions to same-sex couples.
    At least for now, these companies seem to be in the minority, though it is unclear whether more employers will follow their lead. Eastman Kodak, based in Rochester, said it would continue to offer domestic partner coverage to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.
    Interesting, too
    Whether same-sex couples marry, they will still be responsible for paying federal income taxes on the value of their partner or spouse’s benefits since they are not recognized by the federal government as an economic unit, unless the person covered is considered a dependent. Couples will not owe those taxes at the state level in places like New York that recognize gay marriage.
    How does IRS supercede the U.S. Constitution? If marital status/requirements belong to the states, then shouldn't the IRS have to recognize the state law?

    So, does the IRS do the same to heterosexual domestic partners? Does the IRS discriminate in that regard? While the employers may treat both groups (same-sex & heterosexual domestic partners) equally, the Fed govt does not? If DADT has been found unconstitutional, how can the IRS' position be considered OK?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    3,790

    Default

    I agree.

    If a man and a woman that live together cannot have benefits then two of the same sex should not be able to.

    That's discrimination against heterosexuality.

    WRL

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •