Gay couples to be paid more to offset higher tax

Consistently the gayest, most phallic verbiage I have ever seen.

 

It's a chastity ring, godammit!

 

Consistently entertaining, but also deeply sad.

 

Actually, a lot of companies already do.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/domestic_partner_benefits.htm

Generally, you have to prove that you and your partner (same-sex or not) are in a relationship. Some have done same-sex only and required heterosexuals to be legally married, because the former is not an option in most states. But some companies, to avoid lawsuits and/or complaints, have opened it up to all.

 

"Two wrongs make a right, Lisa. Ah, Rex Morgan M.D. You have the prescription for the daily blues."

 

So it would cost a company more to hire an employee that is gay right? Because they would have to pay more money and they would probably have to pay more on their end of the insurance plan too. So a company would probably not want to hire a gay employee so they could save money. Of course, you can't ask a potential worker if they are gay - but still - I feel like this could lead to more discrimination. Just not a really good idea.

The real bad guy is the insurance company though.

 

When I worked at City Hall in New York this was the case.

Any couple (I think you had to prove you lived together) could become domestic partners and were thus eligible for health benefits.

When I joined Continental Airlines, only your spouse, children and parents were eligible for free pass travel.

But, within days of joining, the Flight Attendants union signed a new contract that allowed them to name any one person to be eligible to share their flight privileges.

As you might imagine, the percentage of homosexuals working as flight attendants was higher than in the general public, and since they couldn't get married, this was the solution.

It worked out great for me since my girlfriend lived in New York, and she was able to fly for free as a result.

(Thanks Unions!)

You could also name a sibling or friend if you wanted to. There were no restrictions.

I imagine a lot of these perks will go away where/when gay marriage becomes the law of the land.

 

Wait, we're all going to have to have gay marriages by law? Lousy liberals.

 

They are, in the eyes of the law in the state of Massachusetts, identical in every way to a heterosexual married couple. There is no difference in the state of Massachusetts. The marriage contract into which they have entered is equally valid in the eyes of the state law. Yet they are denied a very tangible benefit provided to heterosexual married couples by a discriminatory federal law. Heterosexual married couples are not disadvantaged here: They receive the same amount of money in their take-home pay as do the homosexual married couples.

I don't disagree that the federal law should be changed. But there's still too many bigots for that, so this is the next best thing. (Of course, you'd have thought states rightsers would have been all about the federal tax code being conformed to the laws of individual states -- but then that's not really what states rightsers are about.)

And yes, many companies do offer domestic-partner benefits, regardless of gender. But as with married gay couples, those are taxed as income.

 

What's deeply sad is not speaking to the issue and in pathetic fashion, instead hurling personal insults - and you wonder what should get threads locked.

 

I'm mostly interested in how you prove that you are entitled to the gay rebate.

 

The IRS code calls these dependents. That could have fixed all the "benefits" gays were after and also helped elderly couples or in this economy, same-sex "friends," some with kids, who had to share a place to afford it.
But after gay rights are afforded, who cares about any other humans, right?