digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Gays At Boston Globe Told: Get Married or Lose Your Benefits

news.bostonherald.com — Globe staffers have been told that health and dental benefits for gay employees ’ domestic partners are being discontinued. Gay couples who want to keep their benefits must marry by Jan. 1.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • D4RKfantasy, on 10/12/2007, -47/+5What?

    Something is wrong with that statement. So thats like telling them, "Haha, now you dont have benefits!"
    • ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -4/+85Whats the big deal? Domestic partner benefits were only offered to gays because they couldnt marry. Now that they can marry, they dont need the special exception. They're just like everyone else now. This is equality.
    • kaje, on 10/12/2007, -11/+55Do I get benefits for having a girlfriend? No? OK then what's with the bitching?
    • szelij, on 10/12/2007, -0/+46Its a reasonable policy. I don't think anyone would cry out about unfairness because the policy in the first place was to support domestic partners for gays since they couldn't legally marry. That was to put in balance since the Globe supports married heterosexual partners as well. Now that gay marriage is possible, either get married to get the benefits or be like every other live-in heterosexual couples who don't have benefits.

      Fair i'd say.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -25/+7I think it would be more reasonable to just *extend* their policy to include unmarried straight couples, rather than take away benefits from anyone. The more the merrier, and would be good publicity too. I'm sure in Boston they wouldn't have to worry about the crazies at the the AFA causing any disturbance.
    • armature, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17yeah, except everyone's rates would go up. it's not like it's free.
    • residual, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lets keep in mind this story is reported by the Boston Hearld one of the Boston Globes top rivals.
  • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -66/+19I've said it before, gays don't want mere equality, they want special rights. This is just proof.
    • cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27Nice generalization, it really brings out your character.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -28/+17Do you just blindly subscribe to every pre-packaged thought of the Republican party?
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -24/+13I think otherland is more expressing his religious views than his political.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24@PowerCow:

      I believe it was George W Bush, not Jesus, who said that gays don't deserve special rights (which apperently includes hate crime laws).
    • Apocalypstic, on 10/12/2007, -35/+9Hes absolutely right. Gay advocates are a well organized militant cult of in-yer-face-***** who want to change the definition of marriage.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39If the institution of marriage is so "sacred," then why is it so easy to get a divorce? Why is it legal for atheists to get married?
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -27/+9Marriage is a contract, it's not about sacredness or love, at least that's what the gays and leftists keep telling us. In that case gays already have the right to get married just like normal people do anywhere in the country. They don't ask your sexual preference when you get married.
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Millixaw, "Hate Crime Laws" are a sop to panderer-politicians -- they pretend that such crimes are somehow otherwise legal under the existing criminal code. Why balkanize society by creating "The Gay Laws", "The Black Laws", "The Hispanic Laws", "The Asian Laws", "The Caucasian Laws", etc.
      Eventually we're going to get multi-group laws like "The White Gay Laws", "The Hispanic Women Laws", "The Crimes Against Black Divorcees Laws", etc, etc.

      Then nobody will ever file any charges against anyone, since it'll be tougher than filling out a tax return.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22otherland wrote: "I've said it before, gays don't want mere equality, they want special rights. This is just proof."

      How is this proof of anything other that the Boston Globe updating their policies to be non-discriminatory? Are gay rights groups threatening boycotts and organizing protest marches that I haven't heard about? Your argument makes no sense and I therefore give you my coveted Idiot of the Day Award. You may stop by to pick up your gold jackass statue anytime.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -29/+5Wow, ad hominem attacks from EtherGnat, how typical of you gays. Doesn't even dignify a response.
    • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -15/+15Otherland is 100% correct. Would this story had made it to the main page if the title was "Heteros At Boston Globe Told: Get Married or Lose Your Benefits"? Now that the gay community in Massachusetts has the right to get married, they still want to keep the special benefits given to them before they could. Unless all companies currently affording gays health benefits for their live-in parters the same benefits to heterosexuals, then this policy is prejudiced.
    • dh8r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@otherland: While EtherGnat may have committed Ad Hominem, why do you respond with another logical flaw? I've seen you do it in your other posts too......
    • CausticNoise, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You have said it before, but you haven't answered our questions, Ollie.

      Here it is: What do these "special" rights entail that give gays rights that straights don't have?

      Can you answer, or can you ignore?
    • Servetus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Sanman, Hate crime laws work by taking intention and effect into account with punishment. If I spray-paint “Servetus was here” on the local high school’s gym then that is vandalism and I should be punished. If I spray paint a swastika on a synagogue then that is vandalism too. They are the same crime but most people would say that I should deserve a more severe punishment for the latter for both my intention and the effect on the community. So legislators are not pandering when they pass hate crime laws. They are just reflecting our values in law.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3"@otherland: While EtherGnat may have committed Ad Hominem, why do you respond with another logical flaw? I've seen you do it in your other posts too....."

      The argument was already over thanks to ethergnat's childish response. But thanks ethergnat for giving more proof that homosexuals need to just grow up. They need to get over their immature hang ups about the opposite sex. No women don't have cooties...
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Maybe he meant "special rights" from other sinners such as murderers and thieves. Cuz we all know, if there's anything more evil than a terrorist, it's a same-sex couple in love.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Except we have no evidence that ANYBODY--gay or otherwise--thinks this is unfair in the article. The only hint of complaint is the attorney's comment that it could leave employees from other states in the lurch but that complaint was addressed. So I ask again how this is this really evidence of gay people wanting special treatment or is it just an opportunity for you to be a flaming homophobic?
    • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"You have said it before, but you haven't answered our questions, Ollie.

      Here it is: What do these "special" rights entail that give gays rights that straights don't have?

      Can you answer, or can you ignore?"

      I'll answer it for you caustic. The current policy at the Boston Globe gives gay employees who are living with but not married to a partner medical benefits for that partner. Whereas this same benefit is not given to heterosexual employees who are living with but not married to a partner.

      Now this is called discriminatory seeing as the gay community of Massachusetts has won the right to be legally married under Massachusetts law.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3"Cuz we all know, if there's anything more evil than a terrorist, it's a same-sex couple in love."

      If we give special rights to gays then terrorists might as well get special rights too. See, strawman arguments are fun.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I do believe a male terrorist and a female terrorist can already get married in this country, though.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1"I do believe a male terrorist and a female terrorist can already get married in this country, though."

      And so can gay terrorists, since they don't ask sexual preference when you get married, which is why all gays already have an equal right to marriage that is no longer considered sacred or about love...
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I doubt there are gay terrorists. One of the reasons they're terrorizing us is because they believe the USA is too accepting of homosexual behavior.
    • sanman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@servitus, that's what judges are for -- they can raise or reduce the severity of a punishment, based on the circumstances of the crime. By hard-coding groupism into the criminal code, you're then enshrining social schisms in the long run, rather than trying to eliminate them. Who gets to determine whether a particular type of crime is a "Hate Crime" or just a regular crime? Those with political clout to get the special "Hate Law" passed? I think it's better to have a judge do the judging along with a jury, rather than pre-slotting the cases under a judicial caste system.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Ad hominem attacks are not always fallacious. If somebody fabricates evidence and uses it to disparage an entire group of people it is not unreasonable to deduce they are an ass. While I would have preferred to attack otherland's argument itself I could find no argument to attack. If otherland would care to share what evidence from the article proves gay people want special treatment we can have a real discussion--otherwise I stick by my claim that he's an ass.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5That would make him the "bottom" ;-)
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2You are sick. There's no need to bring your abnormal lifestyle into this. The fact stands this would never be in the news if it was about normal people. We are witnessing the gay agenda in action. And get help, ethergnat and millixaw, you need it.
    • CausticNoise, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3As you all can see, otherland ignores the question of which "special" rights are exclusive to gays. He neglected to answer the same question on another gay rights-related story.

      Either he blocked me because he can't handle being questioned, or he's ignoring the question all together because the answer would weaken his position.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You say I need "help" because YOU claimed the article proves gay people want special attention and I had the audacity to ask you to provide ANY evidence for that claim? That's a perfect example of a fallacious ad hominem attack. Congratulations! It is painfully obvious you can provide no evidence from the article for your claim (in fact it seems to prove the opposite) then I think this conversation should probably end here.

      If believing the Boston Globe's actions are perfectly reasonable (as everybody seems to agree) and thinking you should have actual (not make believe) proof before insulting a large group of people is promoting the "gay agenda" then call me queen for a day.
    • Servetus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@sanman. That argument would work if the hate crime laws read, “Five extra years when a white person to burns down a black church.” They don’t. They are put in more general terms where the prosecution has to prove the defendant intended to terrorize a particular community, any community.
    • brutalentropy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3otherland: Every time I see your name in a thread, it is followed by complete and utter idiocy.

      I'm honestly shocked that you can even turn on a computer, let alone figure out how to connect to the internet. It's truly a testament to how far usability has come in the last 20 years, it used to be that only smart people could use computers.

      Do you have any individual thoughts and opinions, or do you just spout the talking points thrown to you by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Ken Mehlman?
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Do you have any individual thoughts and opinions, or do you just spout the talking points thrown to you by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Ken Mehlman?"

      It's an insult to those guys to equate him with them. For someone who spends so much time calling moderate left-wingers "radical", he has some of the most extreme radical right-wing views I've ever seen, far far more right-wing than anything you'd hear from Fox News/etc.
    • tvc15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@CausticNoise and EtherGnat many others who asked what otherland means by gay people wanting 'special rights' and then goes on to say that 'Gays can get married in any state'. I believe he means that gays can _already_ get married to people of the opposite sex and want the 'special right' to marry people of the same sex. What I don't understand is why he won't just come out and say it when asked repeatedly. Am I wrong in my interpretation otherland?
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Gays want the special right to force their definition of marriage on everybody else. That's just opens the flood gates for every special interest group to get special rights and that would spell the end to the equality enshrined in the US constitution.
      Under the current law gays have full equality. They can get married just like normal people can. One man, one woman. One can be gay, or both can be gay. Marriage is just a contract that has nothing to do with love or sacredness anymore I've been told.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@otherland

      You realize nobody is going to force you into a gay marriage, right? How is allowing gays to marry people they love and want to spend the rest of their life with (as opposed to just living together) harmful to ANYBODY? Your arguments sound suspiciously similar to ones made against ending slavery and giving women the right to vote. Somehow I doubt giving gay people equal opportunity under the law is going to destroy equality.
    • frankinla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So.... you don't like gays, and you don't seem to care for jews (i think you've refered to them as 'zionist' and they should be removed (from just the middle east?)), you've made disparraging racial comments, and we know you don't like liberals...

      Are you one of those 88 type guys?
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews. Jews were in the Middle East for thousands of years. Zionists are a recent abdomination. I It's a valid question to ask why the Palestinians are being punished for Germany's crimes against the Jews. Germany should give up land for a Jewish state but instead the Europeans didn't want to deal with that so they forced the problem on the powerless Palestinians.

      It's a typical zionist tactic to try and compare legitimate criticism of Israeli policy to nazism, but the world doesn't buy that scam anymore.

      As for gays, I just want to make sure the equal rights they have right now are preserved and that no special interest group gets special rights like the gays have right now in MA.
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Man that dude otherland must be THE most rampant homophobe I have ever encountered in my entire life.

      People who are that rampantly anti-gay usually have something in them that makes them very afraid about themselves, so they think if they attack it, it might make them feel more 'manly' and they might not have all the doubts and the feelings that they do.

      Why not just come out of the closet otherland? I have to say that you do sound suspicious and that you are protesting a little (well massively in fact) too much. Either that or travel a a lot more than you do and get out of that backwater little inbred town you live in and meet and talk to people from as many different places as possible. When you do I''m sure you will find that it is much harder to hate people for simply living differently than you any where as near as much as you currently appear to.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Homophobe? You don't even know what that means... Fear of homosexuals... I don't know anybody afraid of effeminate gays... I'm so sick of you ***** trying to spread your condition to everyone else. That has been on the gay agenda from the beginning. Let's follow your "logic" If you oppose murderers does that mean you secretly a murderer?

      On the other-hand It's actually quite natural for a species to reject members of the species that are sickly and abnormal....
    • andykram, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1millixaw: I'm not going to jump into this whole gay debate (I really don't feel like flaming/getting flamed right now, b/c let's face it, that's all this topic turns into) but I will point out one thing Jesus might not have said gays don't deserve special rights but he did call what they're doing sexual perversion and an abomination... Like I said I'm not going to jump in, just point something out ;)
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3otherland wrote: "As for gays, I just want to make sure the equal rights they have right now are preserved and that no special interest group gets special rights like the gays have right now in MA."

      Not that you'll ever provide an answer, but what "special rights" are you referring to other than the right to marry the person they love, cherish, and want to spend the rest of their lives with--just like the rest of us? Nobody is receiving any special treatment at your expense. Judging from what I've seen friends and family go through I'm pretty confident they've got it much harder than most. Maybe the "special rights" you refer to are the privilege of having to put up with idiots like you.


      otherland wrote: "Homophobe? You don't even know what that means... Fear of homosexuals... I don't know anybody afraid of effeminate gays... I'm so sick of you ***** trying to spread your condition to everyone else. That has been on the gay agenda from the beginning...On the other-hand It's actually quite natural for a species to reject members of the species that are sickly and abnormal...."

      Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. --Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

      You call homosexuals "sickly and abnormal" but have no aversion towards homosexuals? You don't think that homosexuals should be denied the same rights to marry, share health insurance, and other legal protections that heterosexual married couples enjoy but that's not discriminatory? You believe somebody is trying to spread homosexuality to everybody but that's not an irrational fear?

      Classic paranoid delusional behavior. I suppose it's your right to hate anybody you like--but at least have the balls to admit it.
    • raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Homophobe? You don't even know what that means... Fear of homosexuals... I don't know anybody afraid of effeminate gays."

      Oh come on, there must be more to it than you are letting on? At least I am confident enough in my sexuality (as a straight guy) to not worry about what other people get up to in their own personal lives, or to worry that I might somehow catch homosexuality from gay people, (as though it were even infectious to begin with). I think the only people who could seriously worry about that are those people who are not confident about their own sexuality and fear that they could actually be persuaded or tempted into indulging in acts of gay sex themselves. I'm pretty sure (in fact 100% sure) that I can't be. I have gay friends too who have been in my home regularly, but none of my kids have grown up gay. So all in all I'm pretty confident that gay people don't pose a threat to me. You on the other hand, seem far less certain.

      As for homophobia - as well as the other things that have been mentioned, it is also refers to an inner lack of confidence in one's own sexuality a fear that one may themselves have genuine gay tendencies - which can in some instances provoke a very strong counter reaction - which are also often accompanied by very vehement and vitriolic denials, strangely enough of exactly the kind you have provided here. Therefore it isn't just a fear of being near gay people, it's a fear that you may actually be gay yourself. So as far as I can see the more you protest, the more insulting and aggressive you become, the gayer you sound to me.

      You already complained that you thought I was trying to 'make you gay' but clearly if you didn't feel that way already and were confident in your own sexuality, that would be impossible for me to do anyway? So why would you even worry about it?

      Anyway I have been trying to figure you out - but I see another poster beat me to it. You are anti-gay, anti Jew, anti Liberal and I would guess anti black, anti gypsy, anti-Muslim and anti-just about anybody who does not fit into your mid set of who is and is not a good 'white supremacist.'

      The only thing worth noting, sadly in my view, is just exactly how many of your American 'republican' friends share your views - although at least they are a little more forgiving towards the Jews.

      Anyway, I don't normally spend my time talking to neo-Nazi's - so I don't think I am going to make an exception in this case. I don't often do it - as I'm pretty sure I can deal with anyone's point of view without censorship, but I may well consider blocking you - if only to not have to read any more of your retarded, racist and bigoted posts on other topics.

      I hope most other members of the board (including the non Jewish hating Republicans) will do the same.
  • Brackhar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Seems like a reasonable position for the Boston Globe, since they're in a state where gay marriage is legal.
    • bipto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Though it runs counter to my usual knee-jerk liberalness, I tend to agree with you.
  • butchlink, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I agree. Since they have the legal option to marry, they should if they want the same benefits as as hetero married couples. Otherwise, they're treated no differently than non-married hetero couples. This is the equality they've been striving for. FWIW I'm not gay, but I do think that they have the right to marry.
  • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Aren't there companies out there that offer benefits to ANY couple (including unmarried hetero couples)? I know my employer does, but then I don't work in the private sector.
    • fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Yes. Companies in states that recognize common law marriage are required to offer benefits to unmarried hetero couples (distinction: common law marriage is not recognized in other states). In some states, companies are required to offer benefits to domestic partners which may be of the same or opposite sex (ie, people romantically linked and living together but not engaged or common-law married or legally married).
  • WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4LOL! Think before demanding. You just might get what you want.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5I'm guessing gay married couples also get to enjoy Reagan's marriage penalty for federal income tax. My parents once estimated they would have saved $10k in taxes in one year if they'd gotten a divorce. Welcome to the sucky world of equality, *****.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9When the gays can get married in such progressive states as Mississippi and Alabama, then you can say they have equality.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1"When the gays can get married in such progressive states as Mississippi and Alabama, then you can say they have equality"

      Gays can get married in any state. They just don't want to follow the same rules normal people do. Gays want special rights.
    • CausticNoise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So what are those special rights, otherland? What rights do gays want that straights don't have?
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12otherland wrote: "Gays can get married in any state."

      *****. In 1972 the Supreme Court rules that States do not have to allow same sex unions. 43 states currently have laws banning the practices, 20 states have constitutional ammendments denying the practice. Just Thursday the state supreme courts of New York and Georgia confirmed state bans on the practice.

      Massachussettes is the only state which currently allows gay marriages. Additionally Vermont, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, Maine, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii offer some form of recognition of domestic partnerships.

      While I would not deny otherland the right to suffer from his own delusions, I wish he would stop sharing them with the rest of us.
    • CausticNoise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Dude, otherland, I'm so sorry. Would you like some aloe vera for that nasty burn?
    • CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Gays can get married in any state, I guarantee you that. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. Nothing is stopping them from marrying someone of the opposite sex though.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I doubt being able to marry someone you have no attraction to is considered much of a benefit. You'd feel discriminated against if you were told the only person you could marry was Michael Moore.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"I doubt being able to marry someone you have no attraction to is considered much of a benefit. You'd feel discriminated against if you were told the only person you could marry was Michael Moore."

      So what, gays have told us for years that marriage is not sacred and it's not about love. It's just a contract, that gays have the right to enter just like normal people do. But gays are willing to abide by the rules that contracts tend to have... so they demand special rights that threaten equality.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That should read "But gays aren't willing"
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4otherland wrote: "gays have told us for years that marriage is not sacred and it's not about love."

      Wow, just wow. I wouldn't have thought you could make crap like that up, but there it is. OF COURSE marriage is about love. I think you must be listening to the voices inside your head again. Many homosexuals I've known have been quite religious as well, despite being shunned by most religions. And--as has been stated--if your idea of "sacred" is a requirement should athiests and those of other religions be prevented from marriage as well?
    • marxmarv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@EtherGnat: "OF COURSE marriage is about love."
      "Marriage isn't about love. It's about furniture." -a married buddy of mine from long ago. Then, I'm sure the reason said buddy and I concur in this sentiment is that both of us are inclined towards non-monogamy. Anyway, this turn of events bolsters such a point of view.
  • Chiisuchianu, on 10/12/2007, -27/+2whos the idiot that gave these filthy ***** benefits to begin with?
    • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Is this sarcasm?
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Idiots? Last time I checked, the people of Massachusetts tend to be a lot more educated than citizens of states that have anti-gay laws.
    • KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3No, they're just more elitist.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12When did the ability to read become elite?
    • slickfire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4alot of companies give gay couples benefits.....I used to work at SonyStyle and they give gay partner benefits....i'm sick of ignorant people...*****
    • reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Ignore him. He's probably just another idiotic 15 year old who thinks being a homophobe is cool.
    • Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"He's probably just another idiotic 15 year old who thinks being a homophobe is cool."

      When you're around that age and starting to get feelings for other people of the same sex, homophobia is often the way such people choose to cope. It's understandable, if a little disappointing.
    • KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Funny how advocates of tolerance always use accusing people of being gay as their most searing epithet.
  • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I raise an eyebrow at the policy of only insuring legally married couples, but not at applying the same benefit policies to Gay and Straight couples; that is only fair. Of course the unmarried Gays losing benefits for their partners are complaining, but then so are the unmarried Straights who have been denied that all along. Perhaps their joined voices will win a concession from management now.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The article didn't say anything about unmarried gay couples complaining about this.
    • c5mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Thank you millixaw, I concur. Stonebear: Can you give one example of a gay couple complaining about the Globe's change in policy? I am a liberal that supports gay marriage, and I find the policy change to be positive. I can't imagine a gay couple complaining. It would be hypocritical at the least for them to do so.

    • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I should have made it more clear I was being rhetorical. Read "complaining" as "have a complaint." Although, if the employees in question are not actually complaining about their denial of benefits, they sure ought to be.
  • stonebear, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1...
  • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1n/m
  • KiSA, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Of all the posts I have read, it seems as if a lot of people are missing the point.

    The reason why the Globe is doing this is for legal reasons. If they continue the policy that they had before marriage was legalized, they could very easily get sued and would most definately lose a case of discrimination against heterosexual employees.

    All of you right-wing anti-gay-marriage people should be jumping for joy, they are taking away the homosexual's special treatment. As for the homosexual workers at the globe. They fought for equality and the right to be married: It would be completely hypocritical to ask for the special treatment to be continued now that there is nothing barring them from getting married.

    It's all about maintaining equality, it's not about tipping the scale in another direction.
  • lauraanderson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm a female, married heterosexual and strongly believe in the institution of marriage, yet I'm happy that gay Massachusetts couples can be married...I don't feel my marriage is "threatened." But, if I were gay, I don't know if I would go through the hassle of planning a wedding and exchanging public vows if I knew the marriage would not be recognized in all of these United States. I might want to wait until it was legal everywhere, and then tell me to give up my health insurance if we still lived together.
    • calzone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2ding, lauraanderson wins the prize, hit the nail on the head, etc, etc

      nothing more need be said other than to strengthen her position by pointing out how insightful it is.
    • tvc15, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is much much more to marriage than health insurance and in fact much more to marriage than can be given by private institutions like a newspaper company. One big example is hospital visitation. If a married couple were crossing the street and one of the gets hit by a car, the spouse would be able to visit pretty much whenever they want and also help make decisions. With an unmarried couple, certainly an unmarried gay couple, the bf/gf would be treated as 'non family' and can only visit when 'buddies' are allowed to visit. Can you imagine lauraanderson having someone you were with for 10 or even 20 years in the hospital unconscious and you were not allowed to visit them at all? Or even worse, if their parents wanted to keep you from seeing them ever and making any decisions? And if they passed away not finding out where the funeral was because their parents didn't want you there?
  • raindog469, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I'm gay and I've been in a married-equivalent relationship for 10 years as of this coming Labor Day (and had New York not nixed the gay marriage thing this past week, we probably would have gotten married for our 10th anniversary.)

    I think the Globe's action is basically right on.... we wanted gay marriage, we got it (in Massachusetts, at least) and now there's no need for half-baked imitations of marriage benefits because we have the real thing.

    One little wrench thrown into the works, though, is the tendency of people who work in Boston to live in New Hampshire or Rhode Island and commute in. Neither of those states have gay marriage but people in those states presumably can't get domestic partner benefits anymore at the Globe. Unless this article left something out, there very well may be some people who get their benefits taken away with no chance of recouping them unless they move to a different state. That sucks, but the Globe is otherwise A-OK here as far as I'm concerned.
    • vhold, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10From the article:

      "Domestic partner benefits will continue for Globe employees who live in states where gay marriage is not recognized, Behenna said."
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Domestic partner benefits will continue for Globe employees who live in states where gay marriage is not recognized, Behenna [the newspaper’s compensation and benefits director] said."
      --From the article
  • dgolding, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Interesting that they couldnt find anyone to criticize this - just a bunch of lawyers to sort of comment. This seems quite fair on the part of the newspaper.
  • Valhalla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm glad to see gays treated as equals and now that legally (at least in the realm of marriage) they are being treated as equals, then they should be treated as equals in all areas related to marriage and that includes they health benefits. Their old policy was in place to try and give gays equal access to the medical coverage, now they can get equal access to the medical coverage on equal ground. Anyone who chooses not to get married (though I can understand resenting the pressure) obviously wasn't in a committed relationship of the same level of their counterparts heterosexual and were in fact take advantage of the policy, though I would assume there was a clause that said you must have been in the relationship 12+ months. I believe the University of Florida has a 12 month relationship for both straight and gay unmarried couples to have family health insurance and i think it might have to be a sexual relationship as well.

    The only issue I have is that as the marriage must occur by Jan 1. That means means those that have to marry will be given a short time frame in which to get married and may be forced to get legally married long before they can schedule and plan a service. For those that do not plan on getting married 5 months is a good bit of notice that your benefits will be terminating and if you need benefits to begin looking for a job or your partner looking for another job that will cover you as well.
  • cvrefugee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I'm not gay and I don't work for the Boston Globe. Why should I give two ***** about this story?
    • Valhalla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Probably because you know someone who is gay, or know someone who knows someone? Or maybe you just care about "all men are created equal."? Or perhaps just a general wish to understand the world around you and the events in it?

      I don't work for NASA but I am interested in the fact that a Shuttle is up right now, I even spent some time tonight looking at some used tires in a space exhibit.

      By you logic you should care about, a 20 minute drive, a beat up chevy, a 9-5, where to buy food, and maybe on a good day oil prices (but not what caused them to jump)
    • cvrefugee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No, I still don't care. How will this ever affect me?
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A better question than why should you care is why should WE care that you don't care, and why do you feel compelled to tell us?

      Obviously other people care--or it wouldn't have gotten dugg to the front page. Sharing your apathy is nothing but narcissistic whining.
    • cvrefugee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1This is hardly world news, marked as lame.
  • ccran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hohum. Yet another example of social conflict caused by the government being involved in something it has no place in.
  • panda27513, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0i need to have 3 wisdom teeth removed, about 4 root canals 1 or 2 extractions and some filling. would individual dental insurance really help me save any money or am i better off financing through a dentist office and getting a discount plan?
    http://www.KZWQRIEMA.COM
    i went to a really bad dentist in the past and she only put temp fillings in, so that i would keep coming back for more dental work. needless to say i need the dental work and i dont plan on going back there
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.