Special privileges

Special privileges

Gay activists in Massachusetts want to have it both ways (no pun intended, really). Now that they have gay marriage, they want to keep domestic partnership benefits too. Employers are saying they’re not going to continue shelling out cash if gays can get married now. But gay groups now want both options. In fact, rather than having equal benefits as heteros, as they claim, they want more, since heterosexual cohabitating couples don’t qualify for domestic partnership benefits.

And of course why should the fact that you’re having sex with the other person have anything to do with it? Should such benefits apply to friends living together? What about a son living with his mom? For that matter, why does it matter if they’re living together?

What got us into this mess is that some people began to think of employee benefits as rights rather than privileges. Employers offer then as incentives to potential employees. Instead, liberal groups, including gay activists, saw them as entitlements and began demanding equality. And now that they got it, they want more than equality. They want special privileges. It’s never enough, is it?

  • Dom,

    I work in a health insurance company her in Boston.  I saw this coming the minute the SJC mandated “gay” marriage. 

    The truth is, if gays are entitled employer benefits whether or not they are in domestic partnerships or in “marriages”, the only way to make things fair is to either:

    -Offer benefits to only couples that are married
    -Offer benefits to any couple that claims a marriage or domestic partnership.

    Fortunately, I think we have the luck of the draw on our side on this one.  The fact of the matter is that just in health insurance, premiums rise on average of 8 to 14% per year.  Employers are doing everthing in their power to keep the cost of offering health insurance to their employees down. 

    Allowing gays to keep benefits no matter thier status, or even extending that benefit to heterosexuals would drive health care costs up.  Nobody wants that.

    I think that we are going to be seeing a lot more of this kind of “crackdown” by employers in the coming years.  Especially if “gay” marriage is made a firm law of MA. 

  • I have a feeling that we will start to see employers either 1) offering benefits that are too expensive for anyone or 2) ceasing to offer benefits because they can’t afford them.

  • This falls in line with the accurate analysis that this gay marriage thing is the largest wealth transfer to the wealthiest group in the nation in the entire history of this nation.

    Its all about the money.

    Wait till the Sodomites get a wind of SSA divorce and the settlements therein.

    It is important not to use the term “gay.”  It’s like buying into the “pro-choice” lingo. Homosexual is accurate, though I prefer Sodomite.

  • Sorry, not going there. Some people say don’t use homosexual because that even includes people who are struggling with same- sex attraction. Instead they want you to use gay to refer in-your-face activists. Then other people say don’t use gay because they’ve usurped a perfectly good word and that homosexual is more accurate.

    I’m tired of playing word games. I will use homosexua, gay, and sodomite interchangeably, and I don’t care who gets offended. I don’t care if I’m the most politically incorrect man in America.

  • Actually, some companies already offer benefits to co-habitating couples.  Our health care provider allows us to offer “family” healthcare plans to unmarried couples (homo or heterosexual) who have been living together for more than 6 months.  Of course, it is the choice of the company whether or not to provide the benefits.