February 2, 2008

College Discriminated Against Lesbian Couple, N.Y. Court Rules

Monroe Community College discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation when it denied health benefits to a lesbian employee’s partner, a New York appellate court ruled on Friday.

The court held that the college violated New York’s “marriage recognition law” by not recognizing the validity of the couple’s 2004 marriage in Canada, The New York Times reported. Just as New York employers honor heterosexual marriages that take place in other jurisdictions they must honor gay marriages, the ruling maintains.

“The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” the five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court stated in its ruling. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.”

Lawyers for both sides agreed that the decision applied to all public and private employers in the state.

The plaintiff is Patricia Martinez, a word-processing supervisor at the college, who married Lisa Ann Golden in Ontario in 2004. Ms. Martinez sued Monroe Community College in 2006 after it denied the couple’s 2004 request for health benefits, but a New York Supreme Court justice dismissed the case.

The college begain providing benefits to the women in 2006 under a new contract. The appellate court’s ruling holds that Ms. Martinez is entitled to unspecified monetary damages for the period during which the benefits were denied.

The Times reported that it was unclear whether the college or Monroe County would appeal the ruling. —Don Troop

Comments

1. Another good argument for a Constitutional Ammendment prohibiting this nonsense, or at least making it clear that no sovereign state can be compelled to recognize such marriages against its will. At least the court granted that the legislature of New York could prohibit such recognition.

   — Joseph F Foster    Feb 2, 12:00 PM    #

2. Finally, the government and courts are recognizing that gay people are entitled to the same rights as African Americans and other formerly oppressed groups!

   — Lisa Micah    Feb 2, 12:37 PM    #

3. The legislature “could” also prohibit your marriage, Mr. Foster, on whatever stupid grounds that they agree to. Some perhaps would like to see your marriage invalidated on their basis. Some religious groups only recognize their marriages performed by their own religions. Perhaps you’ve cheated on your wife, so therefore should not be entitiled to any tax benefits related to marriage. You are correct however, in calling this nonsense, marriage as recognized in this country is NOT a religious institution, it is a civil agreement with rights and responsiblilities. Why should some people be excluded from entering into such an agreement just because you don’t like it? Live and let live. MYOB. And, see if you can get your panties out of that twist.

   — AskaLesbian    Feb 2, 01:54 PM    #

4. No, Miss 3, the legislature could not prohibit my marriage on just any grounds it wanted to. Not under the Constitution. But the Constitution does not require the state to recognize a marriage based on just any grounds the participants or perpetrators want either. We are not required for instance to recognize a marriage between a man and a ewe. And when courts start getting ridiculous, it IS my business — and the business of every American citizen. Religion aside, human reproduction is heterosexual. And we are not required to pretend that perversion is normal.

   — Joseph F Foster    Feb 2, 02:28 PM    #

5. If marriage is only for reproduction, then sure it should be confined to heterosexual couples; however, we all know this is about legal recognition and the benefits related to that. If you see gay marriage as a perversion then you must not be able to see past the “gay” part. That, to me, says that you do not believe/agree with people who are gay. Fine! No one is asking you to be gay or commit to a gay marriage. Let them have the rights that many heterosexuals take for granted or abuse. If your religion forces you to disagree with all things “gay,” then pray for their souls and let God make the judgment.

   — AnOpenMind    Feb 2, 02:56 PM    #

6. #4, What does anyone have against a marriage between a man and a ewe? To prohibit this is to engage is specieism. Similarly, what do you have against group marriages, say, the offensive line of the football team marrying all the cheer leaders?

   — inclusive    Feb 2, 03:39 PM    #

7. This must be very tough day for you, Mr. Joseph. If we accept your supposition that human reproduction is only heterosexual, (which it is not.) then any marriage that is childless should be null and void. People beyond the age of child bearing would be denied marriage, as would people who enter into the agreement knowing that they don’t want children. No adoption, no infertility treatment, no articifial insemination. Childless marriages could be considered invalid by the government for any purposes of tax, inheritence, pension, or social security benefits. Perhaps birth control could be outlawed, as well as any married sex without the goal of pregnancy.

   Fortunately people have become more educated to the fact that what is “normal”, for heterosexuals is also normal for the GLBT community. The same universal desire for love, for family, for friends, as well as the financial perks that straight people take for granted. More and more the perverse attitude to be tolerated is yours.

   — AskaLesbian    Feb 2, 04:10 PM    #

8. No Miss 7, people have been propagandized and bullied into fearful silence. Your last is so full of nonsequiturs as to be silly. And human reproduction IS heterosexual. If you find a case where two men copulating can get one of them pregnant; or two women doing the same can get one of them pregnant, write it up and publish it. It’ll make biological history.

   — Joseph F Foster    Feb 2, 04:24 PM    #

9. JFF, the point of N. 7 was that the law already recognizes that marriages are legal even when there is no possibility of reproduction, such as when couples are infertile, or beyond their child-bearing years, etc. Anyways, why don’t you crawl back under the bridge you came from and leave the Chronicle forums for education people?

   — Joe Foster Is An Ass    Feb 2, 04:43 PM    #

10. Well, asses at least don’t call people names. Pretty weak argumentation. Actually, I am an “education person” — a professor at a large midwestern university. In the social sciences yet.

    — Joseph F Foster    Feb 2, 05:03 PM    #

11. Mr. Foster, I’d like you to actually consider the argument proposed by the other comments: If reproduction is the basis for marriage, then a relationship sans reproduction can not be marriage? This seems to be the upshot of your argument, and if so, nullifies an awful lot of marriages. If you’re in the social sciences, then you should know we are one of the few species that copulates for reasons OTHER than reproduction.

    — Chris K    Feb 2, 07:48 PM    #

12. In reply to Mr. Chris, and acknowledgement of the existence of the other “arguments”, miage is an arrangement open to the possibility of procreation. It may for a variety of reasons not lead to it. In a few societies there have been “pseudo“marriages between consexual couples, usually one or both a shaman. But they are temporary “adjustments” and employers are not bound by the run amok courts to offer equal “benefits”. What’s proposed to happen here, Canada, and parts of Yurp [spelling intentional] is entirely new and I suggest an attempt to institutionalize the forced acceptance by society of rejection of reality and an attempt to marginalize and force into silence all who object.

    — Joseph F Foster    Feb 2, 09:37 PM    #

13. So our dear friend Joseph seems to think that his anthropological expertise gives him license to deem gay and lesbian relationships less valid (and more perverse) than the more long-standing cultural traditions of marriage sanctioned by the “majority.” How unfortunate. Someone using this same name once posted to a Chronicle forum arguing that it was ridiculous to deny universities and sports teams the right to use racist “Indian” mascots. Another Joseph F. Foster teaching in the midwest has also been criticized for openly celebrating “Robert E. Lee Day” and hailing Hitler in the classroom. In other words, the bigotry and hate we are seeing here is not restricted to the GLTB community. It’s nice to know that the Joseph F. Fosters of the world are equal opportunity haters.

    — H. D.    Feb 3, 01:50 AM    #

14. Good afternoon Mr. H D and all, and thank you for the apotheosis. Three Joseph F Foster-s in one. I’ve only heard of one other one in three persons so I guess I am in august company.
    Well, correspondents here first couldnt believe I was an “education person” I guess because they are so used to “education persons” going along with the radical agenda. Then when it was learned that I am, and that I know some anthropology, I am accused of assuming it grants me “license”. No. The only people in this discussion wanting license are the homosexuals and their supporters wanting license to get married. But Anthropology and Biology certainly help inform my views. If you are going to feel “hated” because people don’t agree with you and aren’t afraid to say so, then you’re in for a lot of feeling hated. One might want to reflect on that. One doesnt automatically demonstrate hate against blind people when one points out that they ought not be allowed to become airline pilots. One doesnt necessarily “hate” homosexuals just because one thinks they ought not be allowed the indulgence of “getting married”

    As to “mascots” or other university symbols-the ludicrousness of the push against that was illustrated when the Political Correctness Police came up agains the Seminoles and Florida State University. And just try to make the University of Notre Dame du Lac stop using the “Fighting Irish” and see how far you get. As to commemoration of Robert E Lee’s birthday — quite a number of Southern States do, often on the same day they commemorate Martin Luther King, and call it “Lee-King Day”. Pointing that out is not “hate” and you are going to have a hard time making the case that everybody who honors and respects the memory of Robert E Lee is a hatemonger and racist. As to “hailing Hitler” — no Joseph F Foster I am acquainted would ever do that. They all know German quite well and European history, and the origins of symbols and salutes, and if they were going to do it or talk about it, they would do it correctly — the word is “Heil [Hitler]”. And most people who know anything aboutt “Rate my Professor” know that entries on that may not always be the best way to find out what went on in a classroom. Especially when one is very highly selective in the choice of entries to pull material out of because one is not interested in what the class was actually about but rather wants to marginalize, discredit, and silence an opposing view of an important social matter. But I’m going to help you because Ive got other things to do and this has gone on long enough — blogs don’t settle much anyway. Oh yes, all those Joseph F Fosters have one other thing in common — they arent afraid to sign their names.

    — Joseph F Foster    Feb 3, 02:19 PM    #

15. Gee, and I thought this article was about rights and discrimination. Foster tossed a worm in the water and many of you took the bait. Now the posts are all about him.

    Let’s get back on track.

    There is no moral imperative to parse out benefits based on a particular kind of relationship – tradition, mainly decided decades ago by heterosexual married men with stay-at-home wives , has determined that “spouses” get benefits. This is matter of convention, not a matter of natural law. No doubt the reason benefits have been given to spouses is because of presumed “supportive” or “partner” type status a spouse supposedly holds. The other piece of that picture was that the spouse, in the past, primarily female, did not work outside the home.

    Yet, there is no reason to believe that a brother and a sister living together as adults are less supportive or in less a “partnership” than a married couple, for example. One could argue that a husband and a wife have just as much opportunity to get individual jobs that give benefits to them individually as the brother/sister combo. I would argue that a “married” or “committed” relationship between homosexuals can be just as supportive as that between a married heterosexual couple. To assume that a realtionship is more supportive because it is between members of the opposite sex is naive. Married heterosexual couples should not hold pride of place in this issue.

    I am reminded of how irritated I used to get in high school when school dance tickets were advertised as “$15 per couple; $10 per single” I would think, hmm… will the couple sit in the same chair? will they eat less of the food that a single will eat? Why is existing as a couple better than existing as a single. (Before you decide I was the geeky nerd who never had a date, I wasn’t. I won the student body President election as a sophomore 90% to 10% and the first thing I did was change the policy for dance price tickets! This ensured me winning elections for the rest of my high school career!)

    The adult person who should share benefits is the person who supports the employee the most; the person whose efforts contribute to the productivity and success of the employed. After all, the point of giving a benefit to an employee is to raise the level of health/satisfaction of the employee so that person is a better employee.

    — DrFunZ    Feb 3, 03:19 PM    #

16. Wow, I was just looking to read about the discrimination case at MCC...having grown up in the area; but now living and loving in a much more open-minded state!

    I did not expect to read such anti-gay posts…but as an educator, I respect the opportunity we have to voice our opinions. Personally, I didn’t intend to post a comment until I read this:

    “One doesnt necessarily “hate” homosexuals just because one thinks they ought not be allowed the indulgence of “getting married” .”

    It seems to me that one doesn’t necesarily view us as equals either…and I am sorry to hear that Professor Foster.

    — DSC    Feb 3, 03:49 PM    #

17. But what happens if the defensive line of one football team wants to marry the outfield of the baseball team in a group marriage. Any bigots out there who will say this is wrong? Who is to say what is right an wrong in a loving situation?

    — inclusive    Feb 3, 04:25 PM    #

18. There are really 2 issues in the political hot button ‘gay marriage”. One is paying benefits and granting estate/inheritance rights to same sex couples and the other issue is labelling a same sex union a “marriage”.

    Many “Joe Six Packs” can support benefits to same sex couples if for no other reason than the dislike of insurance companies. The second issue Joe Six-Pack views as a cultural war on a millennias-old tradition.

    So when it comes to picking a fight, activists have chosen a whopper! Which means that the struggle for economic and legal rights will be prolonged when it could be achieved (and has been in many states) with a more focused approach. And that’s too bad for all same- sex couples.

    — Clear view    Feb 4, 06:51 AM    #

19. Gay rights doesn’t force anyone to be gay. And yes, Foster, it does mean that the government could come after your marriage. There is nothing in the Constitution that says marriage is between a man and a woman. Live and let live….

    — bert    Feb 4, 08:13 AM    #

20. I hesitate to bother responding to someone like Joseph F Foster, who thinks homosexuality is a pervesion and will not be swayed by any argument we might make. However, I must protest once again the failed ‘logic’ of trying to tie marriage to children. It may very well be that at one time, marriage was the social structure in which children were conceived and supported. This is no longer the case. Significant numbers of children are being borne by heterosexual women out of wedlock. Half of hetersexual marriages end in divorce. Advances in medicine make it possible for lesbians to bear children without having sex with a man. Preventing gay marraige has not stopped any gay couple from having a child, and harms the children they do have by preventing the partner from having fully-recognized parental rights. If you want to use the children to argue against gay marraige, you first need to deal with the epidemic of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and divorce rates in the heterosexual community. Then, you need to answer what role marriage plays for childless couples: despite JFF’s comment, not all heterosexual marriages have the potential for children. Sadly I know of real examples of this. Trying to tie the question of gay marraige to procreation and the protection of children is an argument so riddled with holes and inconsistencies as to be completely untenable to anyone of even modest intelligence.

    — robert    Feb 4, 09:50 AM    #

21. The cheap, Goebbels-style analogy between same-sex marriage partners and animals subjected to bestiality is beneath the alleged intelligence of this forum. Lesbians and gay men are NOT sub-human. Stop trying to replace the Constitution with religiosity and revisionism.

    — Robin Kemp    Feb 4, 09:55 AM    #

22. What about cultures where polygyny has been the norm for millenia? Putting subjective hang-ups aside, what, objectively, is wrong with that? The argument regarding procreation is a religious (and, actually, denominationally specific,) one. In this country, marriage is a civil, not religious matter. So until you can come up with a non-religious basis for your objections to gay marriage, you have no argument to stand on. I note that Mr. Foster did not squarely addressed questions about infertility. So, should infertile people be barred from marrying, since there is no possibility of procreating? Or once their infertility is discovered, must the couple divorce? Finally, of course he hates LGBT people, just as “separate but equal” was a form of hate.

    — Daisy    Feb 4, 09:59 AM    #

23. Amazing! Here we go again, rattling sabers with Mr. Foster. It is “Deja vue all over again” (Berra). I was just on another post last week and he was arguing the same hateful stuff against Chief Diversity Officers. And the week before he was on another high horse. I suspect that Mr. Foster needs to have the Dean give him some real work. Why don’t you go clean some of those new gender neutral bathrooms. It will go nicely with your own load.

    — josie herrera    Feb 4, 10:17 AM    #

24. When you get a marriage license, it is issued by the government…not your church. Case in point: if you and your partner stop off at the Court House to pick up your license…then you are driving to the Church for the wedding…and an 18-Wheeler T-Bones you…your partner is killed…by law, you now own all of his/her possessions and properties…for you were legally married when you took possesion of your license. Marriage is a Government institution, not a Religious institution.

    These are the legal rights that all of our Citizens should have…which is why GLBT couples are insisting that they be given their due.

    — MAM, PhD    Feb 4, 10:38 AM    #

25. I always think debates about whether to recognize gay marriages are absolutely ridiculous. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. Just look at the number of children born outside of marriage. Furthermore, may people who are married (at least half of the married heterosexual couples that I know) did not get married to have children nor do they ever want children.

    Any decision to not recognize the rights of one group opens the door to do the same for another group. It’s all about timing and who has the power.

    Moreover, comparing gay marriage to that between a person and an ewe demonstrates the type of illogical thinking so prevalent in our country.

    Mr. Foster, it is just a matter a time before you experience the type of hatred you so quickly dispense against others. Then the question will be, “Who will stand up for you?”.

    — Kimberly    Feb 4, 11:20 AM    #

26. Yeah, yeah. Same ole’s song. It is amazing to me how one moment people claim the constitution and then accuse anyone who disagrees with them as a hate monger. The supreme arrogance is one in which all opinions that disagree with my position is either ‘stupid’ or ‘speading hate’.

    — Butch    Feb 4, 11:35 AM    #

27. Just to point out a misunderstanding here on the Constitution…it says NOTHING about marriage, which means it is a matter left to the states, who can make laws on marriage as they see fit. So yes, technically states can prohibit marriage between anyone, including a man and a woman. In fact, Mitt Romney (whom I despise) only made one sensible suggestion when he was governor of Massachusetts: to take the term “marriage” out of the law altogether and give everyone civil unions for legal recognition.

    — Jeremy Goodman    Feb 4, 12:21 PM    #

28. The point wasn’t to compare homosexuals to ewes, the point was, if it’s about “what I/we want”, who is to say that sex with animals is wrong? Most people would agree that sex with animals is unnatural. But the question is, why? If it’s about pleasure, what’s the problem?

    As for the argument that marriage isn’t about children because lots of people get married with no intention of having children, you’ve really got a point there. It’s true that once you separate sex from children, and condone sex outside of marriage, you have little ground to stand on to be against homosexual relations. The only argument left is that it’s physically unnatural. (But then, so is using birth control and having heterosexual sex when a woman is fertile.)

    So, I don’t have anything against homosexual people (or people who don’t practice abstinence before marriage), but I do have a problem with them acting on their desires. Being consistent, I also have a problem with people having sex outside of marriage; and I think it’s wrong to get married with no intention of having children.

    Now, what if a couple is simply infertile, is their marriage null and void? No, it has to do with intention. If you have no intention of having children, that’s not really a marriage — marriage then just becomes a “sex license”. But if you desire children and are barren, that is a sad affliction.

    All that being said, I do not have any problem being friends with people who are having sex outside of marriage or who are homosexual. People do all kinds of things that are wrong, but I can hate what they are doing without hating them.

    — becky    Feb 4, 12:29 PM    #

29. Becky (#28),
    The reason the ‘sex with animals’ argument doesn’t hold water is because the animal can’t consent. If a gay couple, or an unmarried hetersexual couple, decide to have sex, or live together, or what have you, it is a decision being made by two consenting adults. Animals and children can’t consent. This is an important difference in this debate.

    and… Gay sex is unnatural? Like oral sex between heterosexuals? I’d like to see them try to pass a constitutional amendment banning that… It just seems that a lot of the arguments that are used to argue against homosexual coupling could be used just as effectively against a lot of heterosexual practices as well… yet it’s the gays who are targeted.

    — Robert    Feb 4, 01:05 PM    #

30. Sanctions against homosexuality are Jewish laws in origin, and seem to be the only “authoritative” prohibition upon which the U.S. harasses gays so much. Other than the teachings of Paul (a Jew), the Jesus gospels say nothing about it. So why are Christians so reactionarily opposed to homosexuality? They routinely ignore practically every other law of Jewish Halal—in fact they eschew the dictates of the the entire canon of Mosaic laws by claiming that Jesus delivered a “new covenant” that released them from the previous restrictions. And as we know, those Christians love their pork. It just doesn’t make any sense that they’d adhere to just one of the Mosaic restrictions and not the rest. You can’t pick and choose. Either you follow them all or you open the world to all others who choose to ignore some or all—which then gives anyone the moral and legal right to ignore the prohibition of homosexuality.

    — marci    Feb 4, 02:12 PM    #

31. Robert, I think that I conceded that heterosexual couples do things that are unnatural too.

    Regulating what goes on in the bedroom is not the place of the government. But to allow homosexual couples the rights of marriage is to explicitly condone a particular kind of behavior.

    I’m not saying the government should punish people for homosexual behavior. But to stay out of it (people can do what they will in private) and to condone it (give them the status of married couples) are two very different things.

    And the gays were never “targeted”. They put themselves on center stage and asked for approval. They don’t have society’s approval, so now they are using the legal system to demand it.

    — becky    Feb 4, 02:29 PM    #

32. So as I am reading all of this, I am wondering if the Beckys and the JFFs know their audience? Really this isn’t the fourm for such debate; I hope that all of your instutions have resources where you can learn more about the whole issue before any of us make a remark we might regreat!

    PEACE AND LOVE

    — Out and Proud    Feb 4, 02:48 PM    #

33. Becky,
    To deny homosexual couples the right of marriage is to explicitly condemn a behavior too. Yes, you did say hetersexuals engage in unnatural acts… but you’re not suggesting that they be denied certain rights as a result. Deny legal protection to the gays, but turn a blind eye to the same activity in heterosexuals.

    Let’s get away from the sex part for a moment. Homo- and hetersexuals have been having sex out of wedlock for a long time, so that really has little to do with the question of marriage. As a civil institution, marriage gives life partners access to their partners’ health insurance, joint ownership of property, legal authority to make important life and health decisions when one partner becomes incapacitated, legal rights to care for their children, etc… These are civil issues which have nothing to do with what goes on, or does not go on, in the bedroom. We don’t ask heterosexual couples what they are doing in the bedroom before we grant a marriage license, why should we be concerned with what gay couples are doing? They don’t need marriage to have sex… they need marriage to certify that they have made a lifelong commitment to one another, and to receive the civil benefits that society bestows on people who have chosen to join their lives together.

    I do take exception to your assertion that gays are not targeted. For a long time, gays could be fired from their jobs or even beaten to death if anyone found out what they were. They only way to defeat that kind of hatred is to ‘come out’, to let people know that the stereotypes are not true, that when we talk about gays, we are talking about our co-workers, our neighbors, even our siblings or children. Coming out on ‘center stage’ was necessary to put a human face on the issue. To suggest that they don’t have society’s approval is wrong: a majority of citizens now support civil unions, and in some parts of the country the homosexual community enjoys widespread support. Besides, anytime a minority group has been oppressed by the will or prejudices of the majority, they have turned to the legal system for protection: that’s why we have a legal system… to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

    — Robert    Feb 4, 03:02 PM    #

34. Yes, becky, and the people that the United States enslaved didn’t have society’s approval to be free either, or to vote, after emancipation, or to go to any school they wished to go to, or live where they wanted to, or marry whom they wanted to, for that matter. Remember when sex between Black and White people was considered unnatural? Somebody’s religion told them that and state governments went for it. Read the “Loving vs Virgiania” case. So when the hoses and dogs were turned on the descendants of the enslaved, I suppose one could say that they, as you put it, brought it on themselves by putting themselves on center stage and demanding from the law what society would not approve. I simply cannot understand how anyone in this day and age can so brazenly support civil rights discrimination as you do. You are free to practice your religion but you may not use the state to force your religious convictions on others. That is in the Constitution.

    — Daisy    Feb 4, 05:35 PM    #

35. I say let’s get government out of the marriage business entirely and let that occur in houses of worship where it started. The government should issue civil union (or DP or whatever one wants to call it) licenses for any consenting adults (of whatever gender) who wish to claim the federal and state benefits currently afforded those who are “legally married.” People of faith can honor their unions however they choose, but the Feds legislating the concept of “marriage” was a crazy idea from the start, IMHO.

    — Allen    Feb 4, 06:04 PM    #

36. Equal marriage protect for everyone! Maybe extendiing marriage rights to gays and lesbians will lower the overall divorce rate in the US. As a group, they have some of the lowest rates of separation. Maybe they have something valuable to teach the heterosexual community about longevity and committment.

    — Marie Nubia-Feliciano, M.S.    Feb 4, 06:40 PM    #

37. No marriage for gays! They have no right to change the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years.

    And enough of this comparison to blacks. There is no parity between slavery and “gay oppression.” The opposition to gay marriage rests on a disapproval of behavior, not an immutable factual characteristic such as skin color. Forcing members of society to grant imprimatur to behavior they find morally abhorrent is, simply, wrong…no different from forcing us to validate adultry, s&m, coprophilia, or any other behavior a majority of the population finds objectionable.

    — The Hamster of Love    Feb 5, 02:19 PM    #

38. Oh hamster… Do you really think you don’t engage in behaviors some of us might disapprove of? Do we really want our government to tell us which private behaviors we can and cannot engage in? Are gay couples engaging in behaviors that heterosexual couples do not engage in? And does denying them the right to marry somehow prevent those behaviors?

    — Robert    Feb 5, 03:17 PM    #

39. Hamster…and others…please note that marriage as we know it does not go back thousands of years. Marriage began as a contract, usually made by parents, to join two families together. Whether the two people involved wished this made little or no difference. The church considered anyone married who declared, to each other, that they were joined. The rite of marriage was originally just a contract having more to do with property rights and willingness to fight for each other’s clans than anything else. Let’s just go back to the original idea of a civil contract for any who wish a committed relationship and be done with it.

    — Barbara Kozi    Feb 5, 04:37 PM    #

40. Marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as a gay marriage. If the woman’s parnter wanted insurance, she should go buy it like all other non married people.

    — Douglas Thomas    Feb 8, 06:59 AM    #

41. #38—The issue isn’t whether I (or gays)engage in behaviors others don’t approve of. It’s about whether or not a tiny minority (2-6% of the population) should be allowed to reinvent marriage in a manner that not only guts thousands of years of tradition, but that many, many people find morally reprehensible. And, like it or not, people do have a right to shape a society in a manner that conforms to their own values. This is not discrimination against gays, who are as free as heteros to marry a member of the opposite sex. That they don’t want to is their problem, not ours.

    — The Hamster of Love    Feb 8, 01:41 PM    #

42. Marriage is a civil contract regulated by the state. The state has a vested interest in such unions, and gives the participants of such unions numerous benefits, including tax and inheritance advantages. Every society in the known world recognizes the union of a man and a woman as the basic element of its society, and in fact, many societies punish homosexuality with prison or death. In the Islamic world, homosexuality is regarded with revulsion, and the penalties are immediate and severe. Here’s a thought I want to leave you with…American citizens travel, live, and work throughout the world. Should an American homosexual “couple” be arrested in one of these Islamic countries, and sentenced to death, do you believe the American people would think they are worth going to war for? Before you blurt out that American citizens are entitled to protection from their government, on the surface, this is true, but I submit to you that as we are in a de facto war against radical Islam, such homosexual relationships give our enemies a legitimate reason (in their eyes) for opposing our decadent and “sinful” ways.

    — Firstsai    Feb 8, 07:51 PM    #

43. If it got me a good benefits package I’d be willing to consider marrying a ewe. (But not a football team; I have my standards.)
    And thanks for Firstsai for reminding me that that there are no gay Muslims. So remember: If we allow same-sex marriage, the terrorists win!

    — BertW    Feb 12, 08:33 AM    #

44. I’m so confused. If I agree with the gay community on this issue, I’m open-minded, forward-thinking and intelligent. If I disagree with the gay community, I’m a closed-minded member of the Nazi party who supports slavery and is abusive to small animals. Any help with this would be appreciated.

    — jaye    Feb 12, 10:49 AM    #

45. “Live Off-World”
    —Philip K. Dick

    — marci    Feb 12, 12:54 PM    #

46. “Exciting opportunities await in the off-world colonies”.

    I suspect, however, it’s SSDP (same stuff, different planet)

    — Jaye    Feb 13, 10:21 AM    #

47. I think all of this conversation is very interesting. I also think it would be much beter to have it in person. Who agress? How about we hold a conference in recognition of Foster who makes all of this hoopla possible. I will contribute $1 to fund it.

    As long as you grant individuals a certain degree of respect even if the differ in ideology, they you’re ok. I could write on here that I don’t like white-gay-catholic people. And I’m entitled to that. It doesn’t make me a bad person, that’s simply how I feel. So at the end of the day, as long as you’re not denying someone basic rights, you can think and feel whatever you’d like. (I don’t btw, this was an illustrative example. I don’t want a million responses to that).

    — Marjorie D    Feb 13, 05:23 PM    #

48. Troll alert! Ignore him.

    — LitProf    Feb 16, 01:00 PM    #

49. Another good argument for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting this nonsense, or at least making it clear that no sovereign state can be compelled to recognize such marriages against its will. At least the court granted that the legislature of New York could prohibit such recognition.

    We are on a very slippery slope here. Iran does not recognize marriages of Muslim men to Western Women who do not convert to Islam. Do we want to do the same? Even God lets people choose, and we should do the same. Some things are better left between God and individuals. The separation of church and state means that the laws of the land should not be set by insurance companies which want to deny benefits to the spouses and children (and pretend it is for religious reasons). With sperm donation allowing women couples to have children, it is obvious that in the USA we need to require the children in these marriages to be covered, and in addition the mothers. Science, technology and medicine has redefined the family unit, birth mother, genetic mother, genetic father and husband, … We need to keep health insurance separate from people’s religious beliefs. We provide medical care for prisoners of war and criminals and now some want to deny this coverage for law abiding families and partners. God forbid we do not stoop so low, to deny these people health coverage until Hillary is able to get elected and implement a National Health Plan which covers all people living in the USA (residents, citizens, illegal aliens (as some call them), foreign workers, foreign exchange students, ….). God has told us to treat the foreigner living in our land the way we want to be treated, It is amazing how many people selectively take parts from various religious books to back up their prejudices and misguided beliefs. Each employee should be able to have his/her family covered under the employee health plan until the government provides an adequate National Health Plan, which they have in Sweden, Denmark and the UK.

    — Karl    Feb 17, 09:03 AM    #

50. Fascinating. I will show this blog to my freshmen, as an example of so-called adults NOT having an open mind (what we say we are teaching), and to my 16 year old as an example of pseudo-adults pracicing a decided lack of manners.

    — history professor    Feb 18, 08:55 PM    #

51. The county is appealing the Court’s decision:

    http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802230319

    — Scott    Feb 27, 08:41 AM    #

Previous: Bush to Seek $2.6-Billion More for Pell Grants, AP Says
Next: Ex-Student Gets 4 Years in Arson of Professor's Home