[Marxism] Marriage, yes; benefits, no: the marriage oppression

[David Thorstad]

This item ought, in my view, to give pause to the supporters of same-sex 
marriage, including the kneejerk self-described Marxists on this list. 
The options (e.g., domestic partnerships...) that have been crafted get 
flushed down the toilet when marriage is installed. Case in point: In 
Massachusetts people have been told by large employers to either get 
married or lose benefits for their domestic partners. But this is all of 
a piece with the larger gay fantasy of “marriage equality” – which may 
sound good but produces more of the same old status quo. In New Jersey 
after a state domestic partner law had been on the books for a year, the 
leader of the Garden State Equality group trashed the law as unworkable 
despite enabling gays and straights to get kinship recognition and said, 
“Nothing less than marriage will do.” (The NJ law applies to same-sexers 
18 yrs and older, different-sexers 65 yrs and up – seniors want kinship 
but do not want to mess up their pensions and other matters.) That one 
size does not fit all is a lesson lost on such “leaders.” These days not 
only are many people waiting to get a ball and chain (“marriage”) but 
some use private contracts (prenuptial agreements) to lighten the 
burden. It is time to get marriage off the law books and in the churches 
where it belongs; we need a variety of kinship options along with social 
justice – single payer health care for all!
I would like to point out also that for all our lives, gays have been 
confronted with the question, "Why aren't you married?" or "When are you 
going to get married?" Now, with the clamor for gay marriage 
(unfortunately abetted enthusiastically by many leftists, both gay and 
straight), we are being asked the same question (coming from the 
opposite angle): "Why aren't you married?" Many straight people probably 
can't appreciate the oppression involved in this question. But then, 
they should stop trying to force the marriage chain on all same-sexers.
David
======================================================================================== 


http://www.rep-am.com/News/382600.txt

Marriage, yes; benefits, no.

Ruling to cost state workers' same-sex partners health coverage

BY PAUL HUGHES REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN

HARTFORD — Same-sex partners of state employees are losing pension and 
health benefits because gay marriage is now legal in Connecticut.

An arbitration award that established the benefits eight years ago was 
conditioned upon same-sex marriage remaining illegal here.

The state Supreme Court's recent recognition of same-sex marriage means 
the state government no longer must provide this coverage to same-sex 
partners and their dependent children.

State Comptroller Nancy Wyman notified the heads of all state agencies 
on Friday that the benefits will cease Nov. 30, 2009, unless the 
partners marry or enter into a civil union.

Under federal law, unmarried partners and dependent children may 
continue coverage at the group rate for 18 months, and possibly longer 
under certain conditions.

There was no immediate reaction from Love Makes A Family, a gay rights 
group that led the efforts to legalize same-sex marriages through the 
state courts and the legislature. Executive Director Anne Stanback 
didn't return telephone calls seeking comment on Friday.

Today, there are more than 50,000 state employees and upwards of 40,000 
retirees. It was unclear Friday how many same-sex partners and children 
stand to lose pension and health benefits.

This year, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the legislature budgeted $504.4 million 
for health insurance for state workers and another $500 million for 
retirees.

Public employee unions fought for several years to win coverage for 
same-sex partners and their dependent children in the health and pension 
plans.

A coalition of unions representing most state employees and the admini- 
stration of Gov. John G. Rowland negotiated an unusual 20-year deal on 
pension and health benefits in 1997.

The unions and the administration couldn't agree on coverage for 
same-sex partners and their dependent children. It was a potential 
deal-breaker. The two sides agreed to revisit the issue in 1999 to 
salvage the 20-year agreement.

The negotiations in 1999 didn't produce any agreement. The issue then 
went to binding arbitration. In arbitration, the unions and Rowland 
administration each adopted the same positions they took in the failed 
negotiations.

The unions prevailed in arbitration in early 2000, but the arbitrator 
added a hitch. If same-sex marriage became legal in Connecticut, the 
health and pension benefits would cease within one year.

On Oct. 10, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian 
couples have the right to marry under the state constitution. The 
landmark ruling took effect Nov. 12.

Wyman advised state agencies that the state government stopped 
recognizing new domestic partner- ships for benefit purposes effective 
Nov. 13.

She told department heads that health and pension benefits for same-sex 
partners and dependent children will cease effective Nov. 30, 2009, 
unless the partners marry or enter into a civil union.

Visit www.rep-am.com <http://www.rep-am.com> to comment on this story.

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Attached Message Part
Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/attachments/20081201/f35ec95e/attachment.txt