Same-sex partners in U.S. to get federal benefits
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 7 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 26 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
33 Comments
Login to comment
0
timorborder
Good. I can never understand discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. They work, they pay their taxes, they are in stable relationships. What else do people want? For them to go around wearing identification as in Nazi Germany?
0
northlondon
Homosexuality should not be permitted in the military. If ones persoanl sexuality is not an issue, then I could argue that I want to join the womens army corps and women could then argue that they wanted to join the mens corps. And what is it with same sex couples demanding this and demanding that ? It seems as though the only people who don't get any benefits anymore are normal hetrosexual partners !
0
northlondon
We have to listen to these same-sex homosexual couples crying for this and demanding that and yet normal partners are neglected. Why do homosexual couples have to get married anyway ? Why all the attention ? Why can't they just live together and get on with their lives without needing all this recognition from hetrosexual people. And in the military the bottom line is that homosexuality does not work buddy. When I spent time in the British Army I did not want to spend close proximity in the barracks, in a tent, in a trench, in the showers, with someone who is attracted to men thank you very much.
0
OneForAll
"Obama Intends to Extend Federal Benefits to Unmarried Partners" http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/16/obamaintendstoextendfedera.html?hpid=topnews
Keep your network up folks. Fined a friend and move-in. Save the Healthcare cost on one person's salary:-) Fed's paying, for they have unlimited resources. But you have to wait, for there are no Health Benefits yet.
0
OneForAll
Find
0
kiwiboy
re: northlondon..... The 'this and that' that they are demanding is simply the same rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples. They wont be getting anything more than anyone else. Heterosexual couples wont loose out at all, like you make it sound. The homosexual groups simply want the same rights for homosexuals that are granted to everyone else. Why should two guys or two woman in a loving, committed, life-long relationship, not be entitled to the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples in the same situation? Its ridiculous. Hope Obama hurries up and fixes it!
0
bobobolinski
The "showers" argument could be extended though. What about a sports team who change and shower in close proximity? OK for them to bar gays, or people they think might be gays, or whatever? And then, if it is a matter of proximity, where do you draw the line? What about your workplace; if you feel "uncomfortable" with someone there who you have to work with everyday, you should be able to get them fired?
Moderator: All readers, stay on topic please. This thread is about federal benefits to same-sex couples.
0
Kanadjin
Northlondon, you are very ignorant of the issue. It is not that homosexuals are wanting special recognition or special treatment by heterosexuals. Nor are they wanting more rights than heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples are wanting the same rights as heterosexual couples and to be treated equally under the law. They could very well just live together and get on with their lives, but if one of them were to go into the hospital the other wouldn't be allowed to see them, or if one were to die, the other may not be able to inherit his or her property.
0
Farmboy
Interesting that unmarried heterosexual couples still to not get benefits.
0
skipthesong
Interesting that unmarried heterosexual couples still to not get benefits." You beat me to it. Or how about a married person, who is separated, but can't get divorced because one partner find the benefit of staying married, but one is trying to have a life as a separated person?
also, yes, heterosexuals do lose out. When one gets pregnant, they must take maternity leave, which is quite short in the US, leaving one to live on one income.
0
teleprompter
Federal benefits. Is their anything easier for a Democrat to do than spend other people's money?
Another week, another payoff to one of the many aggrieved little constituencies out there that "liberal" social engineering and policy has created.
Obama's Chicago Machine mentors taught him well.
Folks, uh, I lose sleep when I , uh , contemplate the deficit. But as I was telling Tim Geithner the other day,uh, in the end, uh, money's only paper!
0
Good_Jorb
Are you saying that "liberal" social engineering created Gay people? What an off comment.
0
Sarge
Do well-off same sex partners get the federal benefits too?
0
goodDonkey
These uninformed people trying to claim that "normal" heterosexuals are the only ones without benefits are either being deceitful or ignorant. I do believe this article is about the U.S. So, I challenge anyone to list the benefits that gay people have that heterosexual people do not have. Please, no dumb examples of maternity leave because nobody has more rights in the maternity leave issue. In other words unless you are using a gender argument then women have the same legal rights in laws concerning maternity irrelevant of their marital status or sexual orientation. Nobody can withhold divorce from another person also. That is not an issue of a lack of heterosexual benefits. Marriage is a benefit and the barriers to entrance and exit along with the costs are not a question of benefits but rather of the legal structure of the institution of marriage. You choose to accept the benefit with all of its ramifications or you don't get legally married.
bobobolinski, it only makes sense to compare the job/career loss resulting from people feeling uncomfortable to other situations where people would feel uncomfortable and could demand alternate losses. I think it is a very important point to make of why the line of distinction should be drawn where it is.
It is a losing proposition for those who want to withhold rights from groups like gays based on misconceptions and bigotry. In the past, besides the religious condemnation argument, the 'phobes relied upon the fact that with such a small percentage of the population they could never sway such an overwhelming majority. But as we all have gained friends who were gay the support has shifted to a majority with the military issue and will soon be the same with gay marriage. Face it, Dick Cheney supports gay marriage. He says it should be done state by state and not at the federal level but he supports gay marriage.
0
Sarge
"pay-as-you-go"
If only the U.S. government actually did that...
0
smithinjapan
Good job, Obama. Not quite what was wanted completely, but at least it's SOMETHING.
0
adaydream
Farmboy, heterosexual couples can get married. Gay couples, except in a few states, can't get married.
Make it legal for gay couples to get married, then you can demand that they be married to receive benefits.
But until states allow them to get married, Obama is allowing partners to take care of their own.
I'm glad to see "Change." < :-)
0
bdiego
I'm all for gay rights, but the leadership of these activists simply don't believe in Democracy or obeying existing laws until they can be changed. They're exactly the same as the fascist "pro-life" movement and PETA. They're literally demanding that judges and lawyers pretend the law doesn't exist and expect our country to be run as vigilantes. Instead they need to be working to change the law, not disregarding it. Because someday when the law grants them more rights, there are going to be people who want to disregard that law. And we should all expect them to obey it anyways.
Gays and lesbians are being done a grave disservice by their extremist and hypocritical leadership. And if they want to join them, they're really shooting themselves in the foot because nobody's going to back a bunch of fascist loons.
0
Farmboy
adaydream,
Whether or not heterosexuals can or can't get married, most will not get married, I hope, just to receive benefits. Not all gays would choose to be married even if they could, either, though it might be easier to notice this if they had the option of doing so. The point is that if unmarried gays can receive benefits, then unmarried heterosexuals should receive benefits. If we say partners are partners, that's fine, but then the system should apply to all. Of course, all of this drives up insurance and benefit costs, but that's another story.
0
Helter_Skelter
Ah yes, the poor downtrodden gays, who are one of the most highly educated and prosperous minorities in the nation. But libs always need a struggle, even if they have to create one.
0
grafton
“The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that in recent weeks has grown frustrated with the White House’s slow movement on their priorities.”
The US is in the process of fighting two wars, it has a financial crisis that is closing down some of its largest companies, it also has this new idiocy of a lunatic setting off nuclear weapons & firing missiles. And the gays of America have “priorities”? Unless there is something being put in the water in America I am a little concerned by this mushrooming of gays in the US that is far greater than anything that is happening anywhere else in the western world. No, I do not object to total equality of all the sexes & would suggest that all marriage be made by a civil contract allowing any two people to be “married”. If they wish to reinforce that with a religious “marriage” that suits them fine, but only after the civil “marriage”. It isn’t so much the gay lobby that I object, it’s all the one tune bands we are forced to give recognition to, bending to the will of such groups is fragmentary at a time when unity in dealing with much greater issues would be wiser.
0
adaydream
Farmboy then legalize gay marriage then put the caviot into companies that only married couples can get this kind of coverage.
Until then, this is a temporary solution.
Legalizing gay marriage would place everybody on the same playing field.
That's funny though. That's all they want. Equality. < :-)
Back to top