More evidence, via the Wash Post, that civil unions (or even state-recognized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts) are running into roadblocks. Specifically, courtesy of federal law overriding the states, employers do not need to extend health and other benefits to the partners/spouses of same-sex employees, and many are not doing so.
But the article also notes that public shaming can be an effective means of bringing opprobrium to those who treat gays as second-class employees-and by doing so, help shift the culture overall in a positive direction.
37 Comments for “Benefit Battles”
posted by Jordan on
And yet, this site continues to argue that Civil Unions are the only logical means forward, as marriage is just too far to go. As this article demonstrates, going half-way with civil unions isn’t going to get us anywhere fast, either. Unless states adopt an all-or-nothing approach, there will always be continued, outright discrimination of GLBT couples.
posted by avee on
Jordan, this site has presented various views on the civil unions vs. marriage debate, and the last thing we need is another site that delivers only the "one true party line."
Since we are not going to simply "get" full marriage, it’s a question of what steps we take to advance our cause. Civil unions and non-federally recognized marriages are clearly less than full marriage equality, but as the article points out, they open the door to changing minds and making the culture more accepting of full marriage equality — if nothing else, by demonstrating the insufficiency of civil unions.
posted by Jordan on
Sorry Avee, I just can’t accept that line of reasoning — “We’ll take what we can get.” Why? Why shouldn’t we fight for the same thing everyone else has?
I’m really at a loss for what to say anymore regarding this issue. I feel like every argument has been explained over, and over, and over again to no avail. Comparisons to the civil rights movements of the 1950’s and 60’s about, but some people just refuse to listen. There is no half-way point. It’s all the way, or none of the way.
My point above was that generally this site tends to cast aspersions on anyone who is forcing the issue of marriage and demands this half-breed civil unions for everyone until “times change” or what-not. And yet this very post talks about the fact that civil unions basically give everyone an “out” to avoid facing the issue. I mean, hello? Is this not evidence enough that civil unions are nothing but a worthless pitstop on the road to equal rights?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The problem is not with civil unions.
What this is a reminder of is the fact that, under Federal law, companies are not compelled to provide benefits to their employees, and have considerable leeway in what they choose to offer. That is why so many companies choose to offer domestic partner benefits without requiring marriage or civil unions; it is within their rights to do so.
Conversely, many employers choose to offer employee-only benefits, also with perfect right, that exclude even married couples. Keep in mind that, when heterosexual married couples do not receive benefits, they have one option; change jobs.
Therefore, marriage is not an automatic guarantee of employer benefits. Be glad it isn’t; if employee benefits were linked solely to marriage, then companies could not offer domestic partner benefits without requiring marriage or civil union proof.
Think twice before you demand that companies be compelled to extend coverage only to the married or civil-unioned.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Jordan, of course this is frustrating. But same-sex marriage is surely not the first human rights issue in history where folks have had to “take what we can get” for a painfully long time until justice prevails. And reasonable people can disagree as to what kind of activism is called for at a given moment.
posted by Brian Miller on
As usual, ND30 isn’t telling the whole story. The issue isn’t the federal government forcing employees to offer benefits, but rather the feds giving employers a green light to violate their employment agreements with their queer employees.
When you join an employer who offers you and your spouse health benefits as part of the pckage, especially in states like Massachusetts, you expect you and your spouse to get them. Federal legislation overruling the marriages of some people is allowing employers to defraud their gay employees by offering benefits that they then revoke or don’t offer based on the federal laws that overrule state laws and common sense.
There’s no compulsion of employers here, but rather an active effort by some employers and the federal government alike to commit contract and compensation fraud.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unfortunately, Mr. Miller, you are not compelled to work for a given employer.
What you are trying to do here is to avoid taking a consistent stance — which would require you to say that, if an employer is unfriendly, you should find another employer — by trying to argue that queer employees have “employment agreements” that require employers to pay them spousal benefits. This, of course, runs counter to the vast majority of heterosexual employees, who do not have “employment agreements” and are thus at the mercy of their company’s decision on whether or not to offer spousal benefits, but it has the desired effect you want, which is for you to not have to agree with me.
If an employer misrepresents that they have or will give domestic partner benefits when they do in fact not, then you have a case under common law — or if you are in the rare, RARE minority of people who have a written employment contract that specifically abrogates at-will. But as the courts have repeatedly pointed out, your failure to read your offer letter prior to accepting it or the benefits materials provided you prior to your hire does not constitute contract fraud.
posted by Lori Heine on
We have been treated like second-class citizens a lot more often by the government, at various levels, than we ever have been by the corporate world.
How odd that so many of us keep looking to the State to make things right, when it has been not the State but the private sector that has consistently taken the lead.
posted by The Real James on
I don’t think couples in open relationships–straight or gay–should be eligible to share benefits. I certainly don’t think that a partner in an open relationship should be in a position to make health care decisions for a disabled partner–if he can’t commit to the partner sexually, how does he have the loyalty to make health care decisions for that person?
I think one problem is that many people aren’t convinced that gay couples are “really married,” by which most people mean, in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. I’m sure many gays are. But many people think that gays are just “playing married” in order to get benefits, like Kevin James and Adam Sandler if they were actually gay in the movie.
Until gay couples build a reputation for being lifelong and sexually exclusive, governments and corporations aren’t going to take them seriously.
OK–here’s what you’ll say–“Straight couples are all open and they’re all adulterers and they’re just the same and yada yada yada.” Here’s a difference–married straights know that if one partner gets tired of the open relationship or sick of tolerating adultery, that partner can sue the other partner for half their stuff, and they can also sue for child custody. The legal reality of being married really, really does stop many married people from having sex outside the relationship. Also, there are straight people who want to be seen as examples of integrity in their community so they take their vows seriously–who knew?
In any case, the benefits we long to have in our legal partnerships will become more available as we show we are playing by the same rules as other married couples. I’m sure that’s the case–but the world needs to see it.
posted by Brian Miller on
Unfortunately, Mr. Miller, you are not compelled to work for a given employer.
Irrelevant to the debate.
What you are trying to do here is to avoid taking a consistent stance — which would require you to say that, if an employer is unfriendly, you should find another employer — by trying to argue that queer employees have “employment agreements” that require employers to pay them spousal benefits.
This is where the rule of law steps in, and where I separate myself from you.
I view government as having a few legitimate functions — one of which is prevention of fraud. You seem to rather believe that fraud is A-OK and that if an employee doesn’t like it, he should just find a new employer.
Fortunately, contract law doesn’t work that way. Benefits that are agreed to by both parties must be paid — fee for service.
There’s no difference between an employer promising me benefits for my spouse (and then abusing federal law to avoid paying me those legitimately-earned-through-labor benefits), and an employer using federal loopholes to avoid paying me my salary. If my employment agreement provides for spousal benefits, it must be honored.
Now, I am not surprised that you view contracts as something that employers can unilaterally void using regulations crafted by your party’s commanders in chief. I am a bit surprised that you’d attempt to argue that walking away from contracts, or creatively “redefining” them, is an honorable practice — or one that libertarians should support.
We believe in the primacy of the contract — that agreements between people, with appropriate consideration — are the best form of “regulation.” You, on the other hand, believe that contracts should just be ignored and unenforced when they don’t go your way.
How irresponsible!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What you don’t understand, Mr. Miller, is that the vast majority of employees and employers in this country operate under common law in their employment relationship — specifically the concept of “at-will” — and not contract law.
Under at-will, the rules are simple; you have the choice on whether or not to work for an employer, and the employer has the choice on whether or not to keep you working for them. You may leave at any time with no penalty to you; they may terminate your employment, or change the terms and conditions thereof, at any time.
The exception is, as I already mentioned:
If an employer misrepresents that they have or will give domestic partner benefits when they do in fact not, then you have a case under common law — or if you are in the rare, RARE minority of people who have a written employment contract that specifically abrogates at-will.
I wager the reason you missed that, though, is the following statement:
But as the courts have repeatedly pointed out, your failure to read your offer letter prior to accepting it or the benefits materials provided you prior to your hire does not constitute contract fraud.
If there is a written or otherwise-explicit employment agreement — that is, the employee agrees to waive their right to leave the job at any time without penalty in exchange for guaranteed employment and a specific compensation package in perpetuity — then you would have a case.
However, the “LGBTs” in the referenced article say nothing about that; what they are doing is arguing that, because they have a civil union, they should automatically receive domestic partner benefits, even though their company has never offered it before and is under no compulsion to do so by law.
Or, put differently, a heterosexual couple is demanding that, because they are married, they should automatically receive spousal benefits, even though their company has never offered it before and is under no compulsion to do so by law.
Right.
posted by Brian Miller on
You’re obviously not thinking too carefully about the actual issue, ND.
Hint: An hour is 60 minutes, regardless of whether the federal government decides to define it as 90 minutes.
Hint #2: A marriage is not an “opposite sex union,” a church ceremony, or anything else. In the contemporary legal system, it’s a state-government certification.
Corporate organizations that use federal laws to game-change the marriage regulations of their individual states to defraud their queer employees are no different than a corporation that decides to use a “federal 90 minute hour” to cut their employees’ pay by 33.3% ex post facto.
Contracts between parties cannot be unilaterally changed without consideration — that’s fraud, regardless of how you choose to rationalize it. The fact that the federal government is assisting in the fraud doesn’t somehow legitimize it or excuse it.
posted by Brian Miller on
the “LGBTs” in the referenced article say nothing about that; what they are doing is arguing that, because they have a civil union, they should automatically receive domestic partner benefits, even though their company has never offered it before and is under no compulsion to do so by law
They’re arguing that they should receive spousal benefits — as advertised by their employers. That’s not an unreasonable demand, especially if the company provides for such benefits in its contract of employment.
“Domestic partner” benefits aren’t spousal benefits. Spousal benefits are defined by a legal status (marriage), not cohabitation.
You’re muddying the waters here — changing the rules your own statist impulses created. After all, I don’t think that these benefits should be defined in any way other than mutual agreement — you’re the representative of one of the old parties that is insistent on keeping government involved in marriage.
But now you’re wanting it both ways — wanting government certification of marriages/spousal unions/CPs/whatever you want to call it to have supreme definitional importance in the case of heterosexual people, but no significance whatsoever in the case of gay people.
put differently, a heterosexual couple is demanding that, because they are married, they should automatically receive spousal benefits, even though their company has never offered it before
It doesn’t resemble that in the slightest.
It’s actually more like a company that advertises (and puts in its HR documents and employment contracts) that it offers “spousal health benefits” and then tells heterosexual couples that their marriages don’t qualify as “spousal” and too bad, so sad, only people who are married in a Muslim ceremony get them.
That’s called fraud. When you advertise benefits that are based on “marriage” (i.e. government certification), you cannot then declare that said government certification isn’t good enough in certain circumstances — unless you put that in your HR documents.
If the employers in question were to write in their HR manuals that ONLY government-recognized opposite-sex relationships receive benefits, that would be honest. Instead, they’re seeking a slimy way out that ignores all the legal and regulatory principles they, themselves, have imposed, when those principles go against them. It’s no surprise to me that such a slimy tactics would receive wholesale defense from you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hint #2: A marriage is not an “opposite sex union,” a church ceremony, or anything else. In the contemporary legal system, it’s a state-government certification.
Which you demand that OTHER states be forced to recognize and that the Federal government be forced to recognize — which makes it a Federal matter.
If you are willing to specifically state that no state should ever be compelled to recognize a marriage propagated in another state and that the Federal government is under no compunction whatsoever to recognize a state marriage, then you have a case.
Finally, what this all boils down to is this:
If the employers in question were to write in their HR manuals that ONLY government-recognized opposite-sex relationships receive benefits, that would be honest. Instead, they’re seeking a slimy way out that ignores all the legal and regulatory principles they, themselves, have imposed, when those principles go against them.
Which they have.
If you were familiar with Federal and state benefits and tax laws, you would know that, in order to have a benefits plan that complies and conforms with them, you must meet numerous criteria — one of which is a copy of the plan documents in which specific conditions for eligibility and participation in the plan are spelled out being made available to employees. Changes to existing plans require direct, written employee communications to be made prior to the change taking place.
It’s not their fault that “LGBT” employees don’t read them.
posted by The Real James on
It is appropriate that the movie Chuck & Larry is coming out during this discussion of same-sex benefits. The movie is based on the premise that same-sex legal unions don’t really have to be taken seriously. The trailer suggests that the movie will cover all the stereotypes of same-sex unions which most people think is reality.
The reason same-sex partners have trouble getting benefits, even those partners in legal relationships, is because gay men don’t care about countering the stereotypes.
Until gay men stop condoning open relationships and multiple partners as ethical choices, their legal relationships will not be taken seriously. We will always be seen as variations of the Chuck & Larry stereotype.
posted by Jordan on
Maybe I’m not hanging around with the right people, but I’ve never met anyone who condoned an open relationship or multiple partners as ethical choices. And in my experience, the vast, vast majority of gay men don’t believe that, or behave in that way. Perhaps you shouldn’t stereotype so much?
posted by The Real James on
So you’re saying that the majority of gay men are in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships? Interesting. Only a small minority of gay men choose to have multiple partners or open relationships. Wow. Who knew?
It’s sad, really, when other people’s homophobia causes them to make up stories about our bars and bathouses where, apparently, we discuss great books and think of ways to help the homeless. And other people’s homophobia causes them to see Pride rallies as celebrations of sexual freedom and hedonism rather than rallies for marriage, family, and traditional American values. Why, oh why, do they look at these things and so wilfully misrepresent us? We’ve done nothing to suggest that we aren’t all simply saving ourselves until Mr. Right comes along–and until that day comes, we are serving ice cream to orphans and visiting nursing homes.
Straight people are just meanies, I guess. Oh, well, I have to go–my pals from the Rock Hard Bar and Steambath have to go pick up litter on our Adopt-a-Highway.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Maybe I’m not hanging around with the right people, but I’ve never met anyone who condoned an open relationship or multiple partners as ethical choices.
Here you go.
Endorsed by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
And supported by the ACLU.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
The vast majority of polygamists are religiously based:
http://rickross.net/reference/polygamy/polygamy361.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
http://modernpolygamy.org/morm_chris.shtml
http://religious-freedoms.org/Polygamy_frame.htm
http://www.truthbearer.org
If you’ll note the links given by Northdallass don’t actually document any gay polygamists groups, only people who support, for religious reasons, the right of religionists to polygamy. Note this is the ACLU’s position given in Northdallass’s link:
Advocacy of plural marriage and the expression of a religious belief in plural marriage are protected by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment even though polygamy has been declared to be criminal by states.
The ACLU of Utah has traditionally advocated that personal relationships between consenting adults are protected by the Constitution, and that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights. Criminal and civil laws prohibiting the advocacy or practice of plural marriage are constitutionally defective.
Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.
posted by The Real James on
So, do you think most gay men consider multiple partners and open relationships to be ethically wrong? Would they, if asked, counsel other gay men to avoid multiple partners and open relationships because those things are morally objectionable?
Do you think that most straight people think that gay civil unions are just a cover for open relationships/multiple partners so that somebody can get benefits without having to work?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, yes, Randi.
Perhaps people should be more aware of your beliefs.
As we can see contrary to your lies that most Christians reject polygamy they promote and honour a book that compares polygamy to the heavean. Obviously no one can take Christians seriously when the speak out of both sides of their mouths, condemning polygamy on one hand and promoting it with their bible on the other.
Or another time:
And not surprising you don’t want to touch the fact that the bible you claim to worship promotes, supports and sanctifies polygamy as do all Christians by virtue of their promotion of the bible.
Or, most recently:
The bible you claim to worship and follow clearly sanctifies polygamy and incest. Any Christian attempts to deny that they support such things are clearly lies given their unbridled support and promotion of it as the unblemished word of god.
What we see here is convenient; “LGBTs”, as Randi exemplifies, insist that all Christians support polygamy, and even if they state clearly they don’t, they’re lying — and should be condemned because polygamy and polyamory are evil, misogynist, sexist, amoral, and exploitative.
But when you provide clear examples of the ACLU supporting polygamy and polyamory, the “LGBT community” supporting polygamy and polyamory as exemplified by Beyond Marriage and the NGLTF’s complete endorsement of the same, and fellow “real LGBTs” like dalea endorsing and supporting polygamy and polyamory, not only do “LGBTs” not condemn it; they try to blame these organizations’ support of it on Christians, and not on the organizations themselves.
In short, “LGBTs” like Randi practice a curious hypocrisy; they accuse all Christians of believing in and supporting polygamy when they clearly state they don’t, and they deny that “LGBTs” and “LGBT”/leftist organizations support and endorse polygamy and polyamory, when they clearly do.
posted by Brian Miller on
Which you demand that OTHER states be forced to recognize and that the Federal government be forced to recognize — which makes it a Federal matter.
States must recognize the licenses and certifications of other states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution — marriage, birth certificates, drivers licenses, etc. It’s right there in the Constitution (you really should read it sometime).
The federal government is under a constitutional obligation to provide the equal protection of the law under the 14th amendment — it cannot provide protection to one group of people while denying the same protection to another group.
You Republicans should really read the Constitution sometime before making laws or policies. I’m not “demanding recognition,” I’m demanding constitutional government.
After all, *you guys* are the ones pushing marriage licenses and government involvement in marriage, not me. You’re bound by the strictures of the Constitution as a result, and cannot ignore it simply because it goes against your political agenda du jour.
posted by Brian Miller on
Which they have.
If you were familiar with Federal and state benefits and tax laws, you would know that, in order to have a benefits plan that complies and conforms with them, you must meet numerous criteria — one of which is a copy of the plan documents in which specific conditions for eligibility and participation in the plan are spelled out being made available to employees.
Which they haven’t.
If you promise to pay me $10 an hour, and then after a month of labor, come back and pay me $6.66 an hour and “explain” that federal regulations define an hour as 90 minutes, you’re committing fraud. Ditto for “marriage definitions” that change based on the whim of the contractor.
You can dance around the issue all you want, but the long story short is that individuals and corporations who promise benefits based on marital status who, ex-post-facto refuse to honor the contract, are committing fraud. Now, its true that you Republicans are working to help them out by creating tortured legal loopholes (while also displaying an apalling lack of knowledge about the Constitution’s basic requirements for civil law), but that doesn’t change the fact that fraud is fraud, no matter how much tortured legalese you wish to weave around it.
posted by Jordan on
James, you’re over-reaching. Just because the majority of gay men are not in monogamous relationships does not mean that they believe that multiple partners and open relationships are “ethical.” Until you can back up your assertions with actual facts, they really don’t mean much. Show me some hard data on the number of gay men in open relationships with multiple partners. Or show me some studies which have data to prove that the “majority” of gay men believe open relationships and multiple partners are “ethically correct.”
My point was simply that the vast majority of men who I know simply don’t believe that. Again, maybe I just travel in different circles, but I’ve never met any number of people, let alone some huge majority of gay men who believed that open relationships were a positive thing that they wanted to pursue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
States must recognize the licenses and certifications of other states under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution — marriage, birth certificates, drivers licenses, etc.
You missed a spot.
And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Oopsie. Looks like the Federal trumps the states.
The federal government is under a constitutional obligation to provide the equal protection of the law under the 14th amendment — it cannot provide protection to one group of people while denying the same protection to another group.
Of course it can. For example, it gives marriage protections to heterosexual monogamists, but specifically denies them to polygamists, pedophiles, and bestialists.
Which they haven’t.
(shrug) Go ask the IRS.
posted by Brian Miller on
Go ask the IRS.
Wow, so the IRS determines the validity of health insurance in an employment contract, eh?
Out of general curiosity, what color is the sky in your world? And what’s it like posting through a wormhole from Bizarro Earth?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “”LGBTs” like Randi practice a curious hypocrisy; they accuse all Christians of believing in and supporting polygamy when they clearly state they don’t, and they deny that “LGBTs” and “LGBT”/leftist organizations support and endorse polygamy and polyamory, when they clearly do”.
The only “evidence” you showed of “LGBT/leftitst” organizations “supporting” polygamy was the NGLTF “welcoming” the report Beyond Marryiage in which they never specifically voiced support for polygamy. Polygamy is overwhelmingly a religiously practice and your attempts to smear gays with this couldn’t be more transparrent, shallow and false.
posted by dalea on
Probably the first populizer of complex marriage (which is what ‘open relationship’ and ‘polygamy’ refer to) in the postwar era was conservative/ libertarian author Robert Heinlein. His novels ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ and ‘The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ both present complex sexual arrangements, involving many gender assortments, that are acceptable as some form of ‘marriage’. So in this case, I think we can safely say that the push for polygamy began on the right, not the left. (Both works are generally considered to be classics of Libertarian thought.) And that by and large the push for complex marriage is mainly a right wing effort.
Currently, the Unitarian Universalist Society has a group organizing for recognition of polyandry. It is a recognized subgroup within the Society.
IMHE, polyandry is quite common among Wiccans and other NeoPagans. I have personally known dozens of such arrangements. And they were all eminently workable. L had two wives; one worked at a professional job, the other raised the children and kept house. I was involved in one for several years: his wife recognized me as her husband’s husband. It was a wonderful experience. So, it would be helpful if James would quit trashing other people’s religion. Some of us practice a spirituality that regards monogamy as akin to slavery. As a spirit damaging, soul constricting, control freak demand to run peoples’ lives. There is even a book on the subject, ‘The Ethical Slut’. So, yes, there are people who favor open relationships for religious and ethical reasons. Serious spiritual and religious people find monogamy totally useless and a soul destroying tyranny.
This seems to come from Wicca’s practice of regarding each aspect of marriage as having a reason for being and a purpose. So, we can quite happily handfast Rhiannon and Wolf for the purpose of bearing and raising children. And then handfast Rhiannon and Cerridwen for lifelong love. And then handfast Wolf and Freja and Asgard for sexual pleasure. It is quite common for a devout Wiccan to be simultaneously part of several marriages.
I suspect Randi is right here. While secular elites may prattle on about complex marriage and polyandry; religious people actually go out and do it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Wow, so the IRS determines the validity of health insurance in an employment contract, eh?
What the IRS determines is whether or not a plan is qualified under its criteria and rules — one of which is that participation requirements must be clearly spelled out and communicated to employees.
If you put down a written employment contract that specifically abrogates employment-at-will, there are three ways to manage this.
1) Refer to a qualified plan
2) Guarantee a certain level of benefits regardless of plan
3) Guarantee a certain level of benefits in a qualified plan
If you invoke 1), the employee is subject to all terms and conditions of the qualified plan, which means that, if the company makes changes to the qualified plan, the employee will be affected by said changes — and that will not violate the employment contract.
If you invoke 2), you have created a non-qualified plan, which means any promises made to the employee would be directly binding on the employer — but that there would be no tax benefit whatsoever to participation, since the plan only benefits one employee.
If you invoke 3), you have DISqualified your plan, since that is a discriminatory provision that only benefits one employee.
On the rare occasions that companies actually write employment contracts (usually for executives only), 1) is the overwhelming choice, followed closely by 2). If companies want a qualified plan that they can tie back to their employment contracts, they usually create an entirely-separate plan specifically for that group of contracted employees.
Thus, in order for your argument to be correct, the following needs to occur:
1) Employees need a written contract that abrogates employment at will.
2) Said contract specifically refers to a guaranteed level of benefits and does not just reference participation in the qualified plan
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, thanks to dalea, we now have proof positive that leftist LGBTs fully support and promote polygamy and polyamory and consider marriage to be “repressive”.
Of course, that neatly silences his fellow gay leftist Randi, who previously screamed that all such arrangements are sick, misogynist, and exploitative. Perhaps she’ll spin another excuse blaming me for why she supports relationships like dalea’s and that of the other gay leftists he cites that she previously shrieked that she opposed on principle.
That’s because she is only using polygamy as a slender excuse for anti-Christian hate and bigotry — which is particularly amusing, given that, as I pointed out above, they accuse all Christians of believing in and supporting polygamy when Christians clearly state they don’t, and they deny that “LGBTs” and “LGBT”/leftist organizations support and endorse polygamy and polyamory, when they clearly do.
posted by Jordan on
NDT, come here, you have some hyperbole on your face. Let me just wipe it off for you…
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “And, thanks to dalea, we now have proof positive that leftist LGBTs fully support and promote polygamy and polyamory and consider marriage to be “repressive”.
No, you lie, you have proof that Dalea supports polygamy and no one else. Abraham married his half sister and had two wifes, the bible is rife with polygamous marriages of holy men. The bible sanctifies and blesses polygamy and incest and Christians unconditionally support the preaching of the bible and consider it the inerrant word of god. There claims to oppose polygamy and incest ring extremely hollow given that. Fact is that virtually all polygamist marriages are religiously based. The largest communities of polygamists in the country are Christian, there simply are no comparable (even remotely) polygamist gay and lesbian communities.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, you lie, you have proof that Dalea supports polygamy and no one else.
Mhm.
IMHE, polyandry is quite common among Wiccans and other NeoPagans. I have personally known dozens of such arrangements. And they were all eminently workable. L had two wives; one worked at a professional job, the other raised the children and kept house. I was involved in one for several years: his wife recognized me as her husband’s husband. It was a wonderful experience.
And suddenly Randi is utterly silent in terms of blasting and denouncing these as sick, exploitative, and misogynist.
But of course, she doesn’t care about polygamy and polyamory unless she can use it to bash Christians, does she?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said ” Perhaps she’ll spin another excuse blaming me for why she supports relationships like dalea’s and that of the other gay leftists he cites that she previously shrieked that she opposed on principle.”.
I don’t support relationships like that, you’re a liar. Its you who attacked me for opposing polygamy, incest and child molestation, you screamed “That’s discrimination!”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Of course you do, Randi. After all, if you had a problem with Dalea’s, you’d be attacking him just like you do Christians.
posted by Jordan on
NDT is a crank. Why are you indulging him in this pleasure, Randi? It’s clear that his only intention is to take facts out of context, twist the truth, and yank your chain. The worst you can do for someone like this is ignore them — they have nothing at all to contribute to an intelligent, adult conversation of this, and other issues, except static.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Jordan, if you consider it an “adult, intelligent” conversation to shriek that all Christians support polygamy and the ones that say they don’t are lying….well, there’s not much that can be said to that.
You asked for proof that gay leftists support polygamy and polyamory, and dalea gave it to you — in addition to my citation of NGLTF’s endorsement of Beyond Marriage and polygamy/polyamory, as well as the ACLU’s endorsement of polygamy and polyamory. I am also now pointing out that, if Randi were to treat polygamy and polyamory as something that was wrong regardless of who practiced it, she would be having the same meltdowns over dalea’s doing so that she has over Christians allegedly doing so — and one would think she would react even MORE strongly to organizations that openly endorse and support it with no condemnation whatsoever, like the ACLU and NGLTF.
The problem here is that all of these referenced facts conflict with your worldview. You don’t want to admit that a major national gay organization endorsed polygamy and polyamory and demands full marriage benefits for all sex partners. You don’t want to admit that the leftist ACLU fully endorses polygamy and polyamory and considers laws against both to be unconstitutional and immoral. And you especially don’t want to admit that, like dalea, there are large numbers who consider monogamy immoral and polygamy/polyamory to be superior.
Instead, you attack the people who point it out — and support diatribes accusing all Christians of supporting polygamy, despite the fact that every major denomination has condemned and expelled those who practice it.