Slashdot Mirror
Google To Add Pay To Cover a Tax For Gays
GrApHiX42 writes "Starting on Thursday, Google is going to increase the salaries of gay and lesbian employees whose partners receive domestic partner health benefits, largely to compensate them for an extra tax they must pay that heterosexual married couples do not. Google is not the first company to make up for the extra tax. At least a few large employers already do. But benefits experts say Google's move could inspire its Silicon Valley competitors to follow suit, because they compete for the same talent."
Why is it okay to discriminate against people in such an expensive way? That's like taxing tampons or pads because they know that 50% of people need them. It conflicts with the Christian moral agenda in the first place in so many ways...
Disagree != mod troll.
... a tax for gays? w...why?
You can probably do the same thing with opposite sex friends too.
which is totally what she said
Unmarried hetro couples are now discriminated against. They should get the same as the Gay/Lesbian couples, some people may not believe in marrage or may not want to get married for one reason or another. Why should they be forced to marry just to avoid a tax?
Boy, do I see a lawsuit brewing here. How can they legally justify paying straight people less than gays, if all other factors are equal? I don't care about any tax issues. Does Google pay an apartment dweller more just because they don't get a mortgage write-off? Do they pay a single person more because he can't claim to be a head-of-household under IRS rules like a married person does? Do they pay a blind person less because they get two personal exemptions rather than one on their ISR 1040? If their pay policy doesn't address these and a lot more tax inequities, then I hope that they get sued big time for a pay policy that actually favors gays over straight people. In short, it's not for Google to start correcting the unfairness of the tax system, and to do so in a discriminatory manner that favors gays over straights just isn't right or smart.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Bromance, now pays better than expected.
This. All I see is an article about how the government intrudes into family lives, giving particular benefits to two heterosexuals living together in a particular sort of arrangement but not to singles, homosexuals or people living together under other arranegments. And Google has decided to follow the government's lead by discriminating against everyone whose lifestyle is not that of a particular steady homosexual partnership, e.g. people who remain single / practice polyamory / shack up in a massive commune / sleep around / anything else.
All this crap about the moving helping in "competing for the same talent" implies that everyone is either in a gay marriage[tm] or straight marriage[tm].
Why do gay couples pay more tax?
"Do you know your Sons might be Lesbians?"
It's just another way to hilight what Google feels is a better place to work. Sweeten the pot and hire workers before your competition. Nothing new in that regard - just publicity.
At someone's expense, of course, but hey, you can't owe your soul to the company store if it's not open..
From the article:
Working for a company as rich as Google comes with an incredible number of fringe benefits: the free food, the free laundry, the doctor on duty at company headquarters and the impressive five months of maternity leave with full pay and benefits, to mention a few.
Five months is impressive? 26 weeks (almost 6 months) is a legal right over here. In some countries it's much, much more!
Sorry,two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, spare me the BS please. He's not proposing to deny you gay marriage or anything, he's just just saying basically that compensating that tax for one particular slice is still leaving out a whole other lot of slices which, for all practical purposes, are just as married.
It seems strange to me to see reactions basically boiling down to "booyah, now it's your turn to suck it up." Unless he is one of those that actually did anything against you in the first place, two wrongs just don't make a right.
And basically you're trying to prove what? That gays can be just as much self-centered pricks as the fundies on the other side? We already knew that. After all the most vehement anti-gay preachers turned out to _be_ gay.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It's much better. If you discriminate against 50% of people, they might vote you out at the next election. If you discriminate against a small minority, everyone else says 'well, I'm not one of those (Jews, Communists, Gays, Gypsies, whatever), so I don't care' and lets you stay in power.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I am not familiar with US taxation and benefit systems but I wonder is there a way to fiddle this by pretending to be gay just to get a pay rise?
You really want to be gay-for-pay ?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government. Anything otherwise is discriminatory. It isn't necessarily discriminatory to give write offs to family though over individuals. We live in a welfare state and certain benefits are provided to you. Schooling, tax write-offs to your parents, etc. You received these once too even if it was indirectly. If I create a family with another man (I'm a guy) and raise a child with him than why shouldn't I also be entitled to the same tax write-offs and health benefits that any other hetrosexual family is entitled to? And the same thing basically applies to other write-offs for many other things like disabilities, etc. There may be things that the government allows you to write off that you shouldn't be able to write off or is discriminatory against the poor/rich classes. For instance if they allowed only high ticket items to be deductible for tax purposes and only taxed the lower part of your income. In effect making the poor pay the taxes and the rich pay nothing. Or possibly the exact opposite. In any case this issue is clear cut. Gays shouldn't pay more than anybody else. That's just wrong. If you want to tax the childless population- because they have a larger disposable income-maybe we can figure something out- but don't do it based on the Gay population- there is an identical family structure here that is utterly discriminatory.
That was pretty much my reading too. I think the correct solution is to give in to the Christians wanting the state not to recognise gay marriage and go a step further - the state should not recognise any kind of marriage. If you want to sign a contract for shared ownership of possessions and to cohabit with someone, that's possible without marriage law. If you want to get this agreement blessed by your favourite religion, that's not the state's business.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Legalize it... Fixes the whole problem (and makes us look a little less like rednecks to the civilized world.)
Oops. Posting to undo fat-finger mod.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I think the point was that if you "go all natural", you'll get pregnant way more often, and thus "get a couple periods every couple years."
But, what do I know? I'll return to my basement now.
No law can be defect-free, but consider the fact that every member of a Gay/Lesbian couple was once a child.
Some mostly-correct assumptions are implicit in the law. Kids are known to do better in intact families. (even kids that grow up to be gay) Kids do better with a stay-at-home parent, traditionally the mom. Hetero couples generally produce kids. Legal issues related to kids (inheritance, etc.) are easier with a married couple.
Even totally single people benefit from marriage-related tax breaks. Oh sure, having benefited as a child it would be mighty nice (totally selfish) to throw away the tax advantages for the generation that follows. Your childhood is comfy, and screw the next generation, hmmm?
It's kind of like social security, moving wealth across generations. The kids are at least a good investment; they cost less and aren't just waiting around to die. Better food or additional at-home parental time would do some good.
Think of the children, Gay ones included.
Better yet auction it off on e-bay.
Have excellent health care plan, sell the partner part for extra cost plus 10-20%. Be sure to get a contract written up that they pay for any deductibles and you good to go.
Either legalize same-sex marriage, or just do away with any kind of legal marriage at all. The latter is what I would do if I had my way. Why does the state meddle in what should be a commitment between two people?
And Google isn't helping same-sex couples much. Sure, they are making up for some tax exemptions those couples don't have, but in a wider view they are helping maintain the status quo of marriage laws that are flawed in the first place, in addition to discriminating against heterosexual unmarried couples.
People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government.
Um, no.
I'm with Google on doing what we can to alleviate the discriminatory burden, but it's really you who is missing the point. The only "government recognition" of a "family" that should occur is establishing who is legally responsible for any minor children (and then only if there is a practical issue that needs to be resolved). Past that, the government needs to stay the hell out of "recognizing" *anything*.
There is no way for the government to "recognize" families in a non-discriminatory way, because there's always going to be a situation that doesn't conform to the government's view on what constitutes a "family", no matter how broad that view tries to be. The correct solution is to eliminate the recognition entirely.
So what would you use that "human female reproductive system" for?
Parent's point being, there's no period when you're pregnant.
If you are pregnant you don't have periods. Now read his post again.
A woman gets one or two periods, and then she's pregnant.
Roughly 9 months go by with nothing.
A baby is delivered. I suppose you could call that a period, maybe.
Breastfeeding suppresses the menstrual cycle. The woman can almost certainly go 6 months without a period, and stands a decent chance of going 18 months or more.
So there you go. Regular periods are NOT natural. They are a side effect of birth control.
Each kid born, and each kid nursed, reduces the risk of breast cancer. It's a 5% drop and a 7% drop, or the other way around. Assuming every kid is nursed, that should be about 12% to 13% risk reduction per kid. A woman naturally has about a dozen kids. Breast cancer is quite rare in countries where women birth early and often.
BTW, another side effect specific to the pill: reduced sex drive.
The employee would have to declare that they need domestic partner health benefits. Google isn't "snooping", it's information the employee is providing.
If they qualify for domestic partner health benefits, I should think so.
European companies are really hesitant to hire people because it's so damn hard to get rid of people.
Places that think they can get away with it will particularly avoid those who seem likely to take advantage of the benefits.
WTF is with people thinking they should get paid for nothing and/or have a right to get back a job they abandoned for half a year? Everybody else at that company gets hurt, especially the substitute worker who'd really like to keep the job.
Well, this is all in the eye of the beholder:
- Gay couples pay extra tax
vs.
- Non-gay couples get tax benefit
Or
- Non-Gay employees are negatively discriminated
vs.
- Gay employees are compensated
Don't forget, they can also retire sooner too... So they can retire sooner and receive benefits longer.
I'd mod you up if I could. Either give marriage to all, or remove it to all. Living in rural KY, when I suggested this over a lunchtime discussion of this matter, I thought the guy I was 'discussing' this with was going to choke on his mutton sandwich.
...why are google covering a "tax for gays"? Why are gay people being taxed more in the first place?
FTA: "Google is going to begin covering a cost that gay and lesbian employees must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits, largely to compensate them for an extra tax that heterosexual married couples do not pay."
To me this sounds like gay people are charged money when their (civil?) partners receive some form of benefit, but when heterosexual couples do the same thing they're not charged money? Can someone put this in terms a commnie socialist brit can understand?
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
You know, people have been marrying for money and security for centuries right? And it's not always that much money, or even that much security.
Google's health benefits for homosexual couples will require that relationships are serious, well maybe they even ask if you've ever had a commitment ceremony. I'm doubtful many google employees would lie about their relationships for $1k per year, maybe some lie for the health care already, but whatever.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
That's basically it.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Is it just me or does anyone else find the need to disclose your sexual preference to your employer a little bit uncomfortable? I'm all for Google covering a ridiculous tax but it requires their employees to disclose the information before hand which opens them up to even more discrimination.
A catch 22 in an extremely retarded situation.
G to A to C a T for Y.
Meaning presumably,
$NOUN1 to $VERB1 to $VERB2 a $NOUN2 for $NOUN3.
Can anyone suggest how punctuation or outright surgery can make this headline better, because it just melted into a puddle of of words the first few times I read it. By the way, it's not just Slashdot that's prone to constructing these liquidized headlines. You even see this sort of confusing thing in the BBC News headlines.
May the Maths Be with you!
They say no. Because hetero couples can get married to avoid the tax that this is meant to compensatecfor,
My question though is why is there this extra tax on supplying health insurance for domestic partners?
I want to shoot the messenger!
You can probably do the same thing with opposite sex friends too.
Yeah, like we've got any of those.
Or even same sex friends for that matter.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
for all the crap about google being evil, they sure seem to take care of their employees better then other companies.
While I am not gay, transgendered, or a sexual minority (whatever that means), I have no problem with people being who they are, as long as it's not causing damage/hurting others. I wish more people would be like that, seeing as we are all human and stuck living on this planet.
I do hope though, google pulls out of china, since they are the ones who are trying to change things for the better.
Is profit more important then humanity and human rights?
Be seeing you...
There isn't an extra tax. Domestic partners health premiums cannot be paid pretax like a spouse or child's can. The part of the premium for the partner is considered income (imputed income).
I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would strongly disapprove.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In Portugal (dunno if it's true in other Portuguese speaking countries) we actually have a distinction, although not truly understood by all, of civil vs religious marriage.
"Casamento" is defined by the dictionary as "contract between two people[1] that institutes conjugal duties".
While "Matrimónio" is defined as "Sacrament of the Church that validates before God the conjugal union between a man and a woman"
1]this used to be "men and woman", afaik. It changed recently when it the "different sex" requirement was taken from the law, enabling homosexual marriages.
Dilbert RSS feed
Marriage has certain benefits which cannot be obtained through a contract. The main one is spousal privilege, which prevents someone from being compelled to reveal the content of private communication with their spouse.
This is a blatant violation of the privacy of non-heterosexual Google employees. What right does Google even have under the law to ask them something like that? Seriously.
... But I guess Google isn't really that concerned with privacy of its users, much less its employees.
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me."
So when is Google going to 'gross up' the pay of hetero employees that have to pay a higher tax rate due to the 'marriage penalty'?
From wiki: "In the U.S., income averaging (i.e., the "married filing jointly" status) was advantageous to a married couple with disparate incomes. To compensate for this somewhat, the U.S. provided a higher tax bracket for the averaged income of a married couple. While income averaging might still benefit a married couple with a stay-at-home spouse, such averaging would cause a married couple with roughly equal personal incomes to pay more total tax than they would as two single persons."
So because my wife and I have comparable incomes, we have to pay MORE than would two gays living together. Is the oh-so-enlightened management at Google also going to mount a social crusade to fix my tax woes?
-Styopa
Maybe this could be approached in a Creative Commons, GPL, etc. way?
Create an open-source "co-habitation contract" that would define all the terms of a modern "marriage". That could be used as a model for legislation to that effect in more liberal states.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I get the impression that there's a Civil Union and then a Church union in the UK.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
If there were gays at Google, they would have a lot more beautiful site design.
Got a friend? Want more money?
If need be, you can use half the money to rent a friend.
After the expenses of Lady Gaga mp3s or Cher (for older partners) of course.
Gotta have the image.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Google is in California, so instead of stoning gays, they get stoned and have their first gay experience.
Ain't it funny, South Africa, a nation beseth with difficulties and racial tensions has a more civilized attitude towards gays then the US of A.
And you forget the best about a girl of 13, if you turn her over, she looks just like a boy of 13. Bonus!
Ooh I am going to get it for that one. Petrus is going to spank my ass, the big hunk.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Do what every civilized country has done, legalize gay marriage.
Problem solved.
And yes, every single civilized country has done this, countries that haven't ain't civilized.
Amazing that so many people who worry the government is putting fluride in their water find it perfectly okay that the same government regulates who you can marry.
Good for you Google (and the other companies that do this), fuck the hillbillies and welcome to the modern world in which all people are equal. Not just the bits the nazi child-rapist pope approves of.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm not sure about the USA, but in the UK we have standard contracts for various things that you can pick up (not sure if they're free or just really cheap) in the local post office. For example, the standard tenancy agreement is a fill-in-the-blanks agreement for renting a house or flat. There's no reason why you couldn't do the same thing with marriage - produce a standard template contract and have people just tweak the settings that they want.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
whoosh
Agreed, and I'm a married hetero. People should separate their superstition from law in a secular democracy.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Sodom and Gomorrah in making? or it's were already there.
That was pretty much my reading too. I think the correct solution is to give in to the Christians wanting the state not to recognise gay marriage and go a step further - the state should not recognise any kind of marriage. If you want to sign a contract for shared ownership of possessions and to cohabit with someone, that's possible without marriage law. If you want to get this agreement blessed by your favourite religion, that's not the state's business.
Actually, it's absolutely the state's business. You're not seeking simply cohabitation or shared ownership, you're seeking a legal agency relationship that trumps the rights of blood relatives, allows for probate-free inheritance, etc. Since the state normally enforces probate and intestate succession, they absolutely must be involved in marriage. When the state is not involved - i.e. common law marriage - the couple does not get these probate benefits, nor do they get to be legal and medical proxies for each other.
The church has no business being involved, however. They perform weddings and join people in wedlock, which is a purely religious ceremony.
That makes a lot more sense now. Doctors do recommend that women using cycle-suppressive hormone pills to come off them for a couple of months a year, presumably for the reasoning in your last paragraph.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
So I have to get married because its an economic decision?
Bullshit.
I got married because I love my wife, not because I get a tax break.
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
Normal ('straight') employees are now penalized for not acting unnaturally. (For the obtuse: for doing the same work & hours & etc, the normal employee will get less income).
I haven't done the exact math, but it seems like the intent here is to make up for the extra tax that unmarried couples have to pay, so in the end, heterosexual and homosexual employees should be taking home the same amount of money. Why do you believe the straight employee will get less income?
For what matter, what do you mean by "unnatural"? Is that in the same sense that your polyester clothing or the computer you're sitting at are unnatural, or in the sense of the genetically modified corn that's used as a binding agent in practically everything you can buy at the supermarket...?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Indeed - I think it would be much better to offer the extra benefit to any unmarried partners. It solves several problems:
* It's not then unfair to people who are unmarried with opposite sex partners.
* It avoids the sticky question of whether this might be illegal discrimination. It's an interesting problem - whilst it's trying to address the original discrimination that exists, which I think is good for them to do, it's now reasonable for someone to argue that how they pay their employees is discrimination (I don't know if sexuality is a protected class for employment discrimination in the US?) Whilst technically they would still be discriminating against people who are married, this is far less repugnant (since marriage is a choice), and has far less risk of being illegal.
* Gay people don't have to out themselves - they simply say they've got an unmarried partner.
TFA says:
The extra compensation to cover the domestic partner tax will apply only to same-sex domestic partners, Mr. Bock said, because heterosexual couples can avoid the added tax by marrying.
That may be true, but there are plenty of reasons why opposite sex couples may not wish to get married (e.g., they don't want to enter in a contract for life, with all the implications and connotations that brings). An equal system must treat people the same, not create a separate class system for gay people (another example is here in the UK where we have civil partnerships for gay people - I believe that gay people should be able to get married, but it's also a problem that straight people can't have civil partnerships - not because I'm thinking "oh no, think of the poor straight people", but it's emphasising that gay people should be treated differently).
Of course, it would be a lot simpler if gay people could get married, so I hope any straight people thinking this is unfair is in favour of gay marriage.
Living in rural KY
Tee hee. Snigger.
Squirrel!
I got married because I love my wife, not because I get a tax break.
Same here... because we actually don't get a tax break. We're both employed and have our own insurance, and since a married couple is essentially treated as a single entity, we took a significant tax hit. Instead of paying as two separate people making $50K each with one deduction, we now pay as one person with two deductions making $100K. The tax paid on post-tax benefits would be chickenfeed in comparison.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The dogma affected will never reason effective.
Bigotry decisions indicate a dogma affect.
Bigotry is the effect of applied dogma logic.
Bigotry evolves from a fallacious premise that supports straw-man arguments for flawed evil people.
[Hitler, Farwell, all bible/koran thumpers and other pick-pocket clergy bullshit artist]
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Are they going to compensate married people for the marriage tax? And yes, it does exist, just do the tax return for married vs head of household+single and you'll see that HoH+Single does better.
you know, some of us actually believe the point of life is not to labor as a wage slave. that if society were set up in such a way to maximize individual happiness instead of profit, corporations would take a dent, but capitalism would go right on ticking, and we would be happier people with richer lives. exactly what is wrong with that goal?
meanwhile, you seem wedded to the ravenous idea that toiling for the corporation should be the end-all consume-all point of life
"Everybody else at that company gets hurt, especially the substitute worker who'd really like to keep the job."
well yeah, if the point is to run at maximum capacity possible, all the time, like we are at war with something. there is no slack to pick up if there is no tension in the rope. relax the goddamn rope, you don't have to run full bore all the fucking time. go about your company's business leisurely, let things go a little slower, and calm the fuck down
if all your competitors labor under the same respect the individual's happiness rules, there's no competitive disadvantage
or, move to china, where the wage slaves are committing suicide in mass numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Employee_suicides_and_deaths
and forming unions (in a communist country, irony)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/world/asia/21chinalabor.html
to agitate for the respect from the government and companies that i am agitating towards you: the individual's happiness is the paramount concern, not the fucking company
really, asshole
fuck you fucking corporatists,
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course, you don't get married to get a tax break.
You have kids to get a tax break.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I have never heard of a place that forbids homosexuals from marrying just like everyone else. It is just that, like everyone else, they are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
That being said, I believe that Christian Churches should stop recognizing the government's authority to "bless" marriages.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
discriminating against both homosexuals and people who just don't believe in marriage.
Who cares if you don't "believe" in it. If someone told me there was some form I could fill in to get more money by proclaiming that I am a loyal subject of the FSM, I'd do it.
which is totally what she said
But then it's unfair to those of us who can't find partners!
which is totally what she said
How are they discriminated against? If two gays are living together and one gets the head of household deduction $8,350 (if they don't claim a domestic partnership and have kids) or $5,700 if not and the other will get the $5,700, while married couples get $11,400 filing jointly or $5,700 filing separately, so gay couples get the same deduction or higher based on circumstances then married couples . Now for the tax schedule two gays making $100,000 each in taxable income pay $21,709 or $43,418 together while a married couple filing separately pay $22,122 each or $44,244 together or if they file jointly they pay $44,244. The only way married couples might come out ahead in the tax game is when one spouse makes significantly more then the other and files jointly. So a married couple where one stays home and has 100k in taxable income will only pay $17,363 while the gay couple pays $21,709 but the non working gay could fie a return and get money back so even this discrepancy in taxes paid probably is not there. Looks like Google needs to give married couples a raise for the horrible tax discrimination they receive.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
I wish. I joked with my wife about the tax benefits of our two kids. Being a math geek, she started to do the math taking into account the new birthdays, additional holiday gifts..on and on. Let's just say it didn't end up much of a benefit in the fiscal sense.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
You're not seeking simply cohabitation or shared ownership, you're seeking a legal agency relationship that trumps the rights of blood relatives,
Why can't this be arranged in a similar way to Power of Attorney?
allows for probate-free inheritance, etc.
You're already introducing a Christian moral principle in considering that a person should be able to give their stuff tax-free to a single qualified other. Then it can be abused anyway by marrying to pass on an inheritance. Then exceptions can be created to minimise abuse. Etc.
Why can't I marry two people and let them each get half tax-free? Ten for a tenth each? Why can't I marry my son just so he can safely inherit my farm? What is the non-religious principle here?
The problem is, that's ALREADY the way it is!
You can be "secular married" by walking in front of a judge and signing a piece of paper. And indeed, if you're church married, after your church wedding you have to go to the courthouse to sign a legal marriage certificate.
But you can't do that if you're gay. The problem isn't even religion! Plenty of churches will gay marry a couple, so if all you want is the religious bit, you're fine. But if you want the legal status, you're fucked.
What gay people want is the right to visit their partners in the hospital, the right to deal with their estate, take care of their kids, all the shit that straight people get for free.
I'm not gay. Hell, I don't even have any gay friends who aren't total closet cases. But that this shit has managed to stay an issue for this long blows my fucking mind. It's pure discrimination, and it should not be fucking tolerated.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Speak for yourself. I know people with very intimate same sex friends.
No of couse it doesn't fix the problem. Its just a response to problem to try and reduce its affect. Everybody ends up getting the same amount of money, surely that is better?
I'm not arguing it either way, just answering the question: "My question though is why is there this extra tax on supplying health insurance for domestic partners?"
Is to either cancel the instant action, or:
To give the same benefits to everyone, straight couples AND SINGLES. What I mean by this is to have the legal staff at Google prepare and file a trust and estate, and optional powers of attorney, etc.
These legal documents usually cost about $2-5k total, depending on how complex they are. Google should be doing the same for all their employees. It could be part of the employee packet you get when you start work there, with some additional obligation for the legal staff to offer classes and additional help.
These instruments can benefit straight couples and singles just as much as GLBs.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Er -- why would he need Greek, Latin or Aramaic to read Leviticus "in its original writing"?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
So I have to get married because its an economic decision?
Historically, that's all it was, anyway: a way to ensure inheritance, which is a kind of economic decision (estate planning and all that). So really, what's the big deal?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
...and get a raise.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Well, your salary should be decided on your work, not on what you do at home. What you're saying is the same argument used by people to pay men more than women ("they're more likely to be the sole bread winners" etc).
I was going to say the same thing, wondering where this married person tax break is that everyone speaks of. Before we got married, everyone said we'd get economic benefits. So far, the only way I see that actually being the case is if one partner stays home or makes minimal income. If you're married and both professionals making roughly the same decent income, the government bends you over and makes you collectively their bitch.
You're not seeking simply cohabitation or shared ownership, you're seeking a legal agency relationship that trumps the rights of blood relatives,
Why can't this be arranged in a similar way to Power of Attorney?
Because a Power of Attorney is more like a two-party contract between you and your designated agent. You give that person power to enter into obligations on your behalf, but that's pretty much it. It has no power over other people.
This is in contrast to a marriage, which is closer to a three-party contract between the two spouses and the state. The state is also bound to certain obligations by the marriage certificate, and thus can be obligated to enforce the marriage against the wishes of next of kin or other blood relatives.
Additionally, marriages are like insurance: the real benefits don't appear until after something horrible has happened. When your spouse gets hit by a bus and is in a coma, you're the one who can make medical decisions, even over the wishes of their parents. It's tough to get them to sign a power of attorney at that point, however, and how many cohabitating 20 or 30 year olds do you know that have filled out all of the paperwork to create an agency relationship with someone?
allows for probate-free inheritance, etc.
You're already introducing a Christian moral principle in considering that a person should be able to give their stuff tax-free to a single qualified other.
What? That's not Christian... that comes from the relationship of spouses as a single legal entity. Marriage for inheritance purposes predates the Christian church being involved in marriage by more than a thousand years. The church wasn't involved until the Council of Trent.
Then it can be abused anyway by marrying to pass on an inheritance. Then exceptions can be created to minimise abuse. Etc.
Why can't I marry two people and let them each get half tax-free? Ten for a tenth each? Why can't I marry my son just so he can safely inherit my farm? What is the non-religious principle here?
Two things... First, in a marriage, each spouse owns 100% of the common property, not 50%. Thus, if you marry ten people, all ten own 100%, not 10%. Accordingly, when a spouse dies, the remaining spouse inherits tax-free because they already own everything. That's not a big deal for polygamy, just correcting your statement.
The bigger issue for polygamy is that a spouse is also the legal and medical proxy for an incapacitated spouse. What happens in a three-way marriage when one spouse is in a coma, spouse B says "pull the plug," and spouse C says "keep A alive at any cost"? Under current marriage laws, the hospital must obey the wishes of both B and C, which is clearly impossible.
Here's the deal - there's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy. It just doesn't fit under current law. New laws, probably based on the Uniform Partnership Act to cope with the above situation and ones like it would need to be written first, because current marriage law would create impossible contradictions.
I think we need two words for marriage. There's Religious Marriage which involves going to a church/temple/whatever and having your priest/rabbi/whatever declare you husband and wife in the eyes of your religion's god/gods/goddess/etc. Then there's Civil Marriage which is a legal contract which grants spouses rights not normally granted to non-blood relatives (and, in fact, rights greater than blood relatives). The latter can be obtained during the course of a Religious Marriage or by simply seeing a Justice of the Peace who effectively stamps a few forms and says "you're married."
I don't think there should be any governmental pressures on Religious Marriage. If a church doesn't want to marry Tom and Joe or Mary and Jane then those couples can find another church that will or just not have a Religious Marriage. Meanwhile, Civil Marriage should have no limits so long as the two people being joined in marriage are consenting adults. So Tom and Joe should be able to get a Civil Marriage even if they've never set foot in a church.
The problem is that the word "marriage" has been used for both types of marriage up until now and neither side (Civil or Religious) is going to give it up for an alternative word.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Yes, this is the origin of the saying "God Hates Figs" The Westboro Baptist Church just got things messed up in their minds.
That is true.
The answer is this then -- civil union. No, not as an alternative to marriage for gays, but as a replacement. Separate legal marriage from religious marriage completely. Civil unions get "cut and pasted" in place of marriage in all the laws, and add a clear protection that protects all religious groups from having to perform marriage/union ceremonies of any kind for any one for any reason at their discretion.
There, there is no longer a legal difference between one couple and the next because one is gay and the other is not, it's clearly and explicitly stated that your church doesn't have to marry gays if it doesn't want to in clear black and white, and if you really feel like it, you can say that because they weren't married according to your faith that they aren't "really" married.
Can't wait a year to start filing joint tax returns? Go ahead and get married. Gay, straight, somewhere in between, it doesn't matter; it's legal! (Just one spouse per person, however. They're still picky about that.)
Of course, your health insurance is going to be a lot less expensive anyway -- visits to your doctor are covered by the government.
~Idarubicin
I think we need two words for marriage.
We already have them. There's "marriage", a contractual relationship between two consenting adults and the state that has existed for thousands of years. There's also "wedlock", a religious institution. You can be married without ever entering a church or temple, but you are not wed. Similarly, you can be wed by a priest but if you never visit a town hall to sign the certificate, you're not married.
The problem is that the word "marriage" has been used for both types of marriage up until now and neither side (Civil or Religious) is going to give it up for an alternative word.
Not true. The term "marriage" has only been used interchangeably with "wedlock" since the Council of Trent, during which, in response to their declining power, the church decided to take over many aspects of the secular government. We should restore "marriage" to its original meaning, bereft of religious interference.
Funny, but on a more serious note, during the time of the Bible, people had no way to access the oceans depths needed to reach lobster, shrimp and crab (ok, there are some land crabs). So anything they could access in the upper parts of the water with a net, that didn't have scales & fins were unsafe to eat (ex: jellyfish).
That's quite an inversion from a few hundred years ago, when it was the business of the church only, and not of the states, who got married. If I remember correctly- and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, because that's what happens here- the state only got in the business of marriage licenses to prevent the races from intermarrying.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
That's quite an inversion from a few hundred years ago, when it was the business of the church only, and not of the states, who got married. If I remember correctly- and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, because that's what happens here- the state only got in the business of marriage licenses to prevent the races from intermarrying.
Nope, you're almost entirely, 100% backwards. Marriage was exclusively the business of the state for more than a thousand years until the Council of Trent. There, in response to their declining power, the church decided to take over many aspects of the civil government, including marriage. That lasted until King Henry split with the Catholic church because they refused to grant him a divorce, at which point he said, "screw you, I'll start my own church, with hookers and blackjack." The protestant church retained its ability to perform marriages, but only with consent of the state.
So, in summary, the original, traditional definition of marriage, to which we should return, is an exclusively secular contractual relationship between two consenting adults and the state.
talent for what exactly?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
T-Mobile has done this for years. Not sure why this is such big news.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
I work for a company that does this (T-Mobile). You have to get a document notarized, and also have a domestic partner, both of which are not as simple as lying. Having a domestic partner costs a lot of money, from the health insurance stand point. For me, it costs approximately $200/month to have a domestic partner, and you get paid approximately $40/month in extra money to pay for the taxes.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Corbettw deserves insightful mods.
Marrying for love is a relatively recent development in history. Marriage has always been about creating business and political alliances, right after the requirement to ensure that your offspring get your toys.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
1. How much do you think the clap costs? Gonorrhea? Pretty much nothing. Only HIV costs a lot.
2. Your statistics are stupid and irrelevant. I am gay and have never any STDs, except crabs once which isn't really a disease, more like an STI. I am not 18 times more likely than a straight person to get them, because of many factors other than gayness. Over HALF of my friends (straight) have STDs of some form.
3. Why not charge black people more because they are more likely to be poor and eat worse and live worse and not have full families, etc. etc.?
4. So your stupid-ass comment is basically saying that gay people should be taxed more, in order to pay for a different group of people (people with STDs). Although 66% of the population has some form of an STD, you think gay people should pay more for them than straight people should.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Are you absolutely sure that it was Paul who wrote Corinthians and Romans? Biblical scholars are pretty sure that Paul only wrote 8 of the numerous tracts ascribed to him. Also, they're pretty sure that Timothy didn't write Timothy. Much of the New Testament was ghost-written - meaning literate scribes wrote under the pseudonyms of their favored apostles to promote their own view, and since literacy was rare, most illiterate believers tended to treat such letters as real.
That undermines your argument. I will concede that it is well known that Paul was virulently anti-gay, but I suspect it was in the manner of a closeted gay man who got off on self-anguish and torment
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
I've got even more to your shit-for-brains comment (how does someone as stupid as you not only read Slashdot, but figure out how to post comments?). Even if, statistically speaking, the huge group of people which checks "gay" on the sheet might be .0001% more expensive (and no, not 1800% more expensive dumbass), this is nowhere near anything of what the true cost of healthcare is. 95% of all healthcare money is spent in the last few years of life. Being gay, if it DID actually cost anything (and I figure it costs less, given the less-likely chance of having extra family members to pay for), is a drop in the bucket.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Ugh I still have more to talk about your stupid-ass comment. You said 70% of men with STDs are LGBT. That is such bullshit. You got that from some church's website. 2/3rds of all Americans have an STD of some form, and I really really doubt 69.9% of 2/3rds of all Americans are LGBT. I'm one of those lucky 1/3rd that doesn't have an STD.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
The state is also bound to certain obligations by the marriage certificate, and thus can be obligated to enforce the marriage against the wishes of next of kin or other blood relatives.
But that's only an exception to another exception. If the state didn't already give special powers to blood relatives, it wouldn't have to give an exception to marriage in this case.
Marriage for inheritance purposes predates the Christian church
Of course it does: it predates Christianity. But today it sticks to Christian principles on sexuality and monogamy, among other things.
Accordingly, when a spouse dies, the remaining spouse inherits tax-free because they already own everything.
Assuming a jurisdiction where this is true, this principle cannot be extended to polygamous marriages. I'd just marry everyone on this planet preemptively (you know you want to!) so none would have to pay inheritance tax on my estate. Hence my alternative suggestion.
Under current marriage laws, the hospital must obey the wishes of both B and C, which is clearly impossible.
This could be handled in the same way as multiple Power of Attorney, again without the next-of-kin override clauses which may exist in your jurisdiction. For example, if there is no consensus, do the same thing you'd do if the spouse wasn't available for comment.
"and people who just don't believe in marriage"
And this is related to the discussion how? How about people who just don't believe in health insurance? Shall we give them a break on hospital charges 'cause they are disadvantaged by paying full price for a hospital visit? People who don't believe in auto insurance should not have to pay for damages if they cause an accident? People who don't believe in passwords should just be given their money back when their bank account is cleaned out?
Well, I'm being a little extreme, but the argument continues to be illogical. If you don't believe in marriage, why do you expect the benefits of marriage? Does it matter how those benefits are acquired?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Is google going to even out the pay when Obamacare goes into affect and your medical benefits cease to be tax free (for everyone, homo, hetero, or other)? Quoting Reuters, in 2011: "Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms."
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The state is also bound to certain obligations by the marriage certificate, and thus can be obligated to enforce the marriage against the wishes of next of kin or other blood relatives.
But that's only an exception to another exception. If the state didn't already give special powers to blood relatives, it wouldn't have to give an exception to marriage in this case.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting - the abolishment of any and all intestate legal relationships? Yeah... I don't think you'll find much support for that anywhere.
Marriage for inheritance purposes predates the Christian church
Of course it does: it predates Christianity. But today it sticks to Christian principles on sexuality and monogamy, among other things.
No, monogamy in marriage has also existed a lot longer than the Christian church. Do our criminal laws "stick to the Christian principle of 'thou shalt not kill'"? No - just because Christians claim some of the same things doesn't mean that we're somehow adhering to Christian principles.
Accordingly, when a spouse dies, the remaining spouse inherits tax-free because they already own everything.
Assuming a jurisdiction where this is true, this principle cannot be extended to polygamous marriages.
Bingo. Hence why polygamy needs new legislation to enable it.
Under current marriage laws, the hospital must obey the wishes of both B and C, which is clearly impossible.
This could be handled in the same way as multiple Power of Attorney, again without the next-of-kin override clauses which may exist in your jurisdiction. For example, if there is no consensus, do the same thing you'd do if the spouse wasn't available for comment.
That's one way, sure. It's not the law, however. That's why you need new legislation specific to polygamy.
No offense to you, but I'm really getting tired of this red herring argument. In every discussion of gay marriage, there's inevitably someone who says "oh, yeah? What about polygamy, then?" And it's a red herring because, frequently though not always, that person is not actually in favor of polygamy but are attempting to use it as an analogy to denying gay people equal rights because they assume that people will argue against polygamy for moral reasons, thus allowing them to argue against gay marriage for moral reasons.
Thing is, it's a bad red herring, because most people in favor of gay marriage have no problem with polygamy. It's different, however, and would require new legislation. And when this fact is pointed out to the person who raised the polygamy issue, they invariably ignore it, like you did, making suggestions that would be fine in new legislation, but are counter to current marriage law.
So, look, it's very easy: polygamy requires new legislation. Your suggestions could be in said legislation. Polygamy cannot however work under existing marriage law, because of the myriad conflicts and contradictions it would create. And this is all just a threadjack and has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage.
What you're saying is the same argument used by people to pay men more than women ("they're more likely to be the sole bread winners" etc).
What? That's not the same at all. This isn't some philosphical argument about who deserves to be paid more. The fact is that married heterosexual couples get a tax credit that homosexual domestic partners do not because the state has decided not to recognize homosexual marriages. Google is attempting to ensure that the actual amount of money homosexual employees take home is equal to what heterosexuals take home by compensating for the government's discrimination.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Plus the dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of changes/updates/deletions/etc that each ruling party at the time has made over the last 1000 or so years.
At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
2. necessitating additional salary to offset the additional tax ...
3. necessitating additional salary to offset the additional tax
4. necessitating additional salary to offset the additional tax
n^x. Profit?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Bromance, now pays better than expected.
But then you have to go on mandates...
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
More for person xx always means less for some other person yy. Nobody ever 'gets the same amount of money' in any commercial organization. Nobody ever should.
You haven't see their women yet! Of course, you're a slashdotter so you might not care what they look like as long as all the parts work.
Why don't they pay extra to people who shack up with their girlfriends? Why do the gays get special treatment?
the abolishment of any and all intestate legal relationships? Yeah... I don't think you'll find much support for that anywhere.
Between competent adults? Who is going to object? "No, he didn't give me explicit permission, but I think I should have it anyway." To take the classical, "Should we switch off life support?" question, here's a reasonable list of people who get to choose this, in advance if necessary:
(1) The guy on life support.
Anyone else? No. If he hasn't said anything, assume exactly what you'd assume if there was no family around to decide. Which, hopefully, should be, "Keep me alive as long as you can!"
No, monogamy in marriage has also existed a lot longer than the Christian church.
And polygamy came before monogamy, and asexual reproduction came before polygamy. But it doesn't matter what came first. What matters is why we have today's rules now - if we don't identify what's propping up current legislation, we can't hope to change it.
Your Trent hobby-horse fails to recall that laws had been written and upheld for centuries before based on Christian principles, and punishments for fornication and sodomy were based on Christian principles. Why did Islamic states admit multiple wives for their men, even states which were Christian before? Because their state was no longer based on Christianity.
Do our criminal laws "stick to the Christian principle of 'thou shalt not kill'"?
There are philosophical foundations for no-murder which have been fairly lengthily sounded out and applied in forming younger nations, e.g. Republican France and US, and these foundations shape much law in those nations. If we wanted to change murder law, we'd have to look at those foundations, not at Christianity.
Thing is, it's a bad red herring, because most people in favor of gay marriage have no problem with polygamy
We're discussing Google, not "most people". Google haven't provided a framework of benefits for polygamous relationships, but for gay monogamous couples. Google are highlighting a particular sort of relationship as somehow worthy for special privilege out of a huge list of possibilities. The relationship is: Christian marriage + modification to admit same-sex partners brought about by successful lobbying for gay rights.
But no-one here is denying that current Western laws may not be suitable for polygamous relationships, just as they're often not suitable for monogamous gay relationships. There are still gender-specific privileges which affect a family unit from obvious discrepancies such as "maternity" rights all the way to the possibility in most countries of only men being enslaved in a Draft.
We're discussing Google, not "most people". Google haven't provided a framework of benefits for polygamous relationships, but for gay monogamous couples.
Yes, because gay people are unable to enter into the same institution which straight people can, and are thus denied those benefits. Currently, there is no institution which polygamous people are denied entry to, but others are not.
Google are highlighting a particular sort of relationship as somehow worthy for special privilege out of a huge list of possibilities.
Google is highlighting a particular sort of relationship as equally worthy of privilege as the one the state currently grants the privileges to.
The relationship is: Christian marriage
That's odd. I didn't know jews, muslims, hindus, and atheists couldn't get married in California.
+ modification to admit same-sex partners brought about by successful lobbying for gay rights.
Yes. And?
But no-one here is denying that current Western laws may not be suitable for polygamous relationships, just as they're often not suitable for monogamous gay relationships. There are still gender-specific privileges which affect a family unit from obvious discrepancies such as "maternity" rights all the way to the possibility in most countries of only men being enslaved in a Draft.
You may be confused... we're talking about marriage law, not family law. See, it's possible in this country for people to be married, but have no children. It's also possible for people to have children, but never be married. The two are unrelated. Your examples of maternity law and selective service do not require participants to be married. In fact, marriage has no bearing on them whatsoever.
Do you have any that relate to the topic at hand? Is there anything you can point to marriage law that is "not suitable for monogamous gay relationships"? The short answer is "no". The longer answer is "absolutely not, and this is been litigated in several states already." But feel free to supply your own answer, with examples.
It certainly is a matter of brain chemistry, just like left-handedness. The idea of it being "correctable" is like saying left-handedness needs to be "corrected" because left-handed people are sinister, devil people.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
That link is about AIDS, not STDs.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Now you're just rambling - U mad?
Yes, I was when I first read all this crap.
Smoking is a direct cause of additional health care costs. Being gay is not the direct cause of additional health care costs.
Being fat is sometimes a direct cause (and effect) of additional health care costs. Being gay is not the direct cause of additional health care costs.
Your metaphor makes sense with fat people and smokers. It doesn't make sense with black and gay people.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
3. Choosing to commit gay acts makes no difference in health care costs. This is the part that makes me mad; you are trying to correlate a higher incidence of STDs with gay people, and therefore that being gay means you are less healthy. There's nothing unhealthy about being gay. There is something unhealthy about many things that some gay people do, yes, (same as straight people), but there is nothing unhealthy about me and my partner.
4. See above comments. Fat/smokers/etc. is a category which directly causes health costs. Being gay or being black does not directly cost anything.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
less and less
Because our government, over and over, harps that marriage is a religious institution, and not everyone is comfortable faking it in order to get a tax break. There used to be systems in place to get marriage benefits without marriage but those have been slowly removed over the years as states worry about 'the gays' sneeky getting benefits through them. So marriage benifits have become even more linked to religious institutions over the last 30 years...
Of course, you don't get married to get a tax break.
You have kids to get a tax break.
Meh. Buying a house is an even better deal (unless you have a few kids).
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Btw, thanks for calming down - it's easier to debate when there's less rambling ;-).
Sorry about that.
Anyways, Google is not a healthcare provider. They have nothing to do with charging more for healthcare. What they did was change their pay structure so that gay couples, in the end, get the same amount as straight couples.
Onto the separate question of whether or not health insurance companies should charge more for gays because of the AIDS correlation: I do not think they should charge more to gay people, they should charge more to people with AIDS. Same thing goes for black people, Jewish people, Eastern Europeans, etc. Don't charge the correlation, charge the cause.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
the government should step in and put the brakes on the excesses of capitalism, absolutely
remember children toiling in factories? remember pinkertons goons kneecapping union organizers? remember mandatory 60 hour workweeks? all for pennies?
never hear do the gilded age, huh? out of your ignorance of economic history you want repeat our past mistakes?
if the government does not step in and put limitations on what a company can demand from an employee, and demand rules of fair compensation, then the company will gladly work employees to death as slaves and pay them nickles, in the name of competition, just as you say. this is historical fact
so thanks for being an asshole who hasn't learned from history
start here, you corporatist asshole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_and_employment_law
it's all about hard fought for protections of THE INDIVIDUAL'S LIBERTY from outright abuse by powerful, unregulated corporations
LEARN YOUR HISTORICAL FACT SO YOU DO NOT REPEAT PAST MISTAKES YOU FOOL
we NEED government regulations to SAVE us from the excesses of corporations, which are a FAR greater threat to your liberties and freedoms than any government ever could be. read your history, you uneducated goon
and this is where you call me a fascist or a communist, when i'm just talking about regulationg C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-I-O-N-S, not individuals, you propagandized ignorant asshole
corporation != individual
corporate threat to individual > government threat to individual
LEARN YOUR FUCKING CONCEPTS, UNLEARN YOUR PROPAGANDIZED ASSOCIATIONS, THEN SPEAK
corporations, NOT governments, will happily destroy your freedoms. your democratically elected government is your only tool to protect yourself from them. THESE ARE FACTS OF LIFE. enough with the free market fundamentalist social darwinist libertarian fantasy fiction!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"those have been slowly removed over the years as states worry about 'the gays' sneeky getting benefits through them"
I'm pretty certain that recent efforts in some states have been to make benefits MORE available. Redefining marriage is not being used to minimize benefits, but to prevent expanding the definition of marriage itself. Now, we see some backlash as benefits are turning out to be expensive, and some states/communities are rethinking the whole partners benefits thing. But that's economic, not merely moral. I have never worked for an employer that even offered the benefit.
But my question stands. If you don't believe in marriage, why are you looking for the benefits of it? Is that fair? Logical? Sounds like having your cake and eating it too.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
i believe in the common good
socialism is a concept that has a positive meaning in most of the advanced industrialized nations
but for some reason, a certain group of mindless conservatives in the usa think the word "socialist" serves as some sort of epithet
you're propaganda image, for example, shows 3 people, two of whom are communists, one of whom is a fascist
if i took a picture of gw bush, osama bin laden, and hello kitty, and wrote in all caps "AMISH", that picture would have the same level of intelligence
do you know what socialism is? no, i mean the actual intellectual concept, not as defined by your tired empty propaganda. try thinking about what socialism really means. use your brain, open your mind, detach from your simplistic braindead associations
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
See: Boston Legal, last episode(s).
what life was like for workers in the gilded age, before things like a 40 hour work week law, right?
there's no validity at all in your mind to the government putting the brakes on corporations devouring your entire life?
you think perhaps the idea of "balance" comes into play somewhere? or can you only think of my words in terms of the most far out preposterous communist idiocies?
you wouldn't like another week of vacation? really? you wouldn't like to stop worrying about healthcare and education costs? really?
i prefer the world to be centered on the happiness of the individual, not the bottom line of the ledger sheet. sorry if this offends you, because i'm not happy being just a cog in a machine
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"The employee would have to declare that they need domestic partner health benefits. Google isn't "snooping", it's information the employee is providing."
And what is the procedure to verify they need domestic partner health benefits? Do they "test" for gayness? Here's a statement some employers make employees sign:
"--Have lived together at least six months.
--Are both age 18 or older.
--Share a close personal relationship and are responsible for each other’s common welfare.
--Are exclusive.
--Are not married to anyone else.
--Are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the state.
--Share the same regular and permanent residence, with the current intent to continue doing so indefinitely.
--Are jointly financially responsible for "basic living expenses," defined as the cost of basic food, shelter and any other expenses of a domestic partner because of the domestic partnership. (Domestic partners need not contribute equally or jointly to the cost of these expenses as long as they agree that both are responsible for the cost.)
--Were mentally competent to consent to the contract when the domestic partnership began."
I'm not gay but I've had male roommates and if I can get a few more dollars per hour (average $1,069 a year according to the article) by signing by all means I'm going to do that. Can someone be denied domestic partner health benefits? If a co-worker believes someone is scamming the system, are Google managers prepared to call employees into their office and tell them they're not gay?
I can't see this ending well
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Yes, because gay people are unable to enter into the same institution which straight people can,
Gay people have always been able to get married. It's just that marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman, and gays didn't get to redefine it.
Currently, there is no institution which polygamous people are denied entry to, but others are not.
Let's take the "institution" that is a Californian state jail offering conjugal visits. As the 13th male member of Hacksaw Heidi's harem, I'm outta luck. But as of June 2007, were I the first female, erm, member, 't'd be cool.
Google is highlighting a particular sort of relationship as equally worthy of privilege as the one the state currently grants the privileges to.
No, Google is discriminating in response to particular market pressures. If it had genuinely started pontificating on matters of personal relationships, I'd be more worried.
I didn't know jews, muslims, hindus, and atheists couldn't get married in California.
They can all experience the state's recognising a tweaked version of Christian marriage (and divorce). But a Muslim, for example, will not have the full Muslim marriage (and divorce) experience recognised by the State, only those parts which coincide with the state's view of what marriage is.
You may be confused... we're talking about marriage law, not family law.
Sir, you're worse than a politician. Stop telling people what the issues are and what it is they should be talking about - it's too hot today to gather straw anyway.
See, it's possible in this country for people to be married, but have no children. It's also possible for people to have children, but never be married. The two are unrelated.
Just because A doesn't necessarily imply B, and B doesn't necessarily imply A, it does not mean that the two are unrelated. This is an almost painful fallacy.
Think carefully to see if you can find a relationship between the existence of a stable, loving couple and the bringing up of children. Start with biological advantages if you want, but then think in more sophisticated logistical terms. Incorporate emotion if you are able.
IOW, loving couples often want and have kids. By contrast, Theaetetus, single virgins tend not to suddenly find themselves bringing up a child on their own. What biological, sociological and legal reasons could there be for this?
Your examples of maternity law and selective service do not require participants to be married. In fact, marriage has no bearing on them whatsoever.
Maternity law: It's traditionally considered a lot easier to properly look after a very young child when at least one parent is given a legally protected break from her career. This law needs modification for a two-male partnership.
Draft: in the case that neither partner has children: a home can be kept in good order when not every resident is away at war. This might not be relevant to /you/, but IME it's very relevant to the morale of many servicemen. It's also quite relevant to the ability of the couple to settle back into civilian life after everyone's finished playing with his gun.
Traditionally it was assumed that the young man went out to fight while the woman stayed at home, fitting in neatly with the notion of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. You may say "that's nothing to do with marriage law!" but it doesn't matter one bit what category your copy of Fighting Legal Arguments on the Internet in 24 Hours files it under. What matters is how the law affects the married in a way related to their gender.
(Otherwise I shall argue that what happens to your stuff when you die is not marriage law but inheritance law, and what happens when you're ill is just medical law.)
Is
It is not natural for a woman to have a monthly period? Are you serious? The side effect of many birth control pills is to PREVENT the monthly period and shorten it to only once every few months. Naturally women have a monthly period. Just ask any teenage girl going through puberty, or any woman who is not taking birth control.
Fucking troll.
touche pedantic-man.
But if we get really specific, heterosexuals can marry anyone they want, while homosexuals can't.
I hope me putting it that way doesn't offend homosexuals.
Here's the deal - there's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy.
Polygamy benefits low-quality women and high-quality men. The high-quality women and low-quality men suffer.
Every society with polygamy has an excess of frustrated men. (the less desirable ones) This causes huge problems.
The fact is that married heterosexual couples get a tax credit that homosexual domestic partners do not because the state has decided not to recognize homosexual marriages.
Yes, and it's just as much a fact that men are more likely to be the sole bread winners than women. And that as heads of households, they have more expenses than single people and dual income people.
Externalities at home, whether family or government related, should not affect your salary at work. For Google to attempt to correct imbalances imposed by those external forces is discriminatory, because it's down to their biased judgment what gets corrected and what doesn't.
Yes, because gay people are unable to enter into the same institution which straight people can,
Gay people have always been able to get married. It's just that marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman, and gays didn't get to redefine it.
Not according to the Supreme Court, which has said that the right to marriage isn't just the right to sign a piece of paper, but the right to marry whom you choose. Gay people can't do that.
Currently, there is no institution which polygamous people are denied entry to, but others are not.
Let's take the "institution" that is a Californian state jail offering conjugal visits. As the 13th male member of Hacksaw Heidi's harem, I'm outta luck. But as of June 2007, were I the first female, erm, member, 't'd be cool.
And if you were the second female member, you'd be outta luck. See? No difference. There are no institutions which polygamous people are denied entry to but others are not.
I didn't know jews, muslims, hindus, and atheists couldn't get married in California.
They can all experience the state's recognising a tweaked version of Christian marriage (and divorce). But a Muslim, for example, will not have the full Muslim marriage (and divorce) experience recognised by the State, only those parts which coincide with the state's view of what marriage is.
That is quite possibly the poorest stretching of logic I've ever seen, and it still fails to address atheists. The state is not "recognizing a tweaked version of Christian marriage" unless your definition of "tweaking" means "stripping away everything that makes it Christian or religious". Also, what is a "full Muslim marriage experience"? I think you're back to be confused about the distinction between "marriage" and "wedding".
You may be confused... we're talking about marriage law, not family law.
Sir, you're worse than a politician. Stop telling people what the issues are and what it is they should be talking about - it's too hot today to gather straw anyway.
See, it's possible in this country for people to be married, but have no children. It's also possible for people to have children, but never be married. The two are unrelated.
Just because A doesn't necessarily imply B, and B doesn't necessarily imply A, it does not mean that the two are unrelated. This is an almost painful fallacy.
This "painful fallacy" was part of the opinion by the California Supreme Court in In Re Marriage. The two institutions are unrelated, in spite of your insistence.
Think carefully to see if you can find a relationship between the existence of a stable, loving couple and the bringing up of children.
Think carefully to see if you can find a requirement that a stable, loving couple be married. Think carefully to see if you can find a requirement that a stable, loving married couple have children. Neither exist. Your tenuous argument for correlation is not the law, as held by the Supreme Court of California.
IOW, loving couples often want and have kids. By contrast, Theaetetus, single virgins tend not to suddenly find themselves bringing up a child on their own. What biological, sociological and legal reasons could there be for this?
Legal? None. You didn't even create a legal distinction between "loving couples" and "single virgins" in your hypothetical. You didn't say "married couple" vs. "unmarried virgin". Why? Because it has no bearing on it. The reason virgins aren't parents is because they're virgins, NOT because they're not married.
Oh, wait a second... Is that news to you? I just realized that you may not know where babies come from. This would definitely cause some confusion on y
but my point again is only that if google wants to balance unfair laws it should be to fair to everyone instead of catering to a single group.
Soon, Google will be able to change laws as they see fit. (insert scary music here)
Anyways, you've made your point and I mine. I basically jumped at the thought of "me" being a higher-risk category. I never thought you had any non-logical problems with gays; the conversation has been reasonable (despite me disagreeing, and I was pretty grumpy this morning).
There are two things, which I don't think we should have conflated together: taxes and healthcare. I vehemently disagree that the government (i.e. taxes) should ever discriminate about who pays more or less in taxes, but it does via the whole marriage thing. What Google did was in response to that aspect, but not healthcare.
As for the healthcare argument, you are saying that the pay/taxes sorta bleeds into the healthcare costs (also part of everyone's salary), and that, taking everything into account, the the gays healthcare is more expensive than the straights. My main point is that I don't want gays or blacks or Jewish Koreans or whatever to be a "category" for higher costs; gay/black/Korean/etc. is not a choice (acting out on gay desire are technically choices, but please let's not go there, it will create a different argument which doesn't relate to this one). You believe that it should be, and I disagree because I don't find the "smoker" category the same as the non-choice "gay/black/etc." category. Even though I am statistically at a higher risk, I personally am not at a higher risk of anything because I am gay as opposed to straight. The same would not true if I said "smoker as opposed to non-smoker". And seriously, please replace "gay" with "black", and think about that argument... yes, it's true black people are statistically higher costing that white people, but that's ridiculous to expect the healthy black group be segregated from the healthy white group just because the ratio of healthy white:non-healthy white is higher than healthy black:non-healthy black.
While what you're saying makes sense (pay penalties for the sickness - not the risk), it sort of defeats the purpose of health insurance.
I agree; if you want me to start paying for people with AIDS, but not you, then it sort of defeats the concept of pooled-risk group health insurance. You want ME to pay for someone else, but not YOU. Well, that's what group health insurance is... paying for someone else!
OK I probably typed too much for someone who is supposed to be finishing the argument. Take it easy.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
It's an interesting problem - whilst it's trying to address the original discrimination that exists, which I think is good for them to do, it's now reasonable for someone to argue that how they pay their employees is discrimination (I don't know if sexuality is a protected class for employment discrimination in the US?)
Not yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act
You just made a whole bunch of counter-argument to an argument that isn't being made. Besides your weird statements about your perceived persecution, the answer to your question "why is this necessary" is that, it is not necessary. It's just that, some gay employees used to make less money because of tax laws than their straight counterparts. Google change its pay structure to attempt to have gay employees make the same amount as their straight employees. Existence is not, by definition, alternate reality. There's only one real reality.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
If churches are somehow offended that certain groups can now marry (be they gay couples or interracial couples as was the problem not so long ago in the US), they can, if they wish, rename their "marriage" to something else. Of course, if the couple wants to be recognized as legally married, they would still have to have a regular civil "marriage" license, but they could call it whatever the hell they want to privately.
I wish. I joked with my wife about the tax benefits of our two kids. Being a math geek, she started to do the math taking into account the new birthdays, additional holiday gifts..on and on. Let's just say it didn't end up much of a benefit in the fiscal sense.
Not to mention that people failed to tell me I'd need to feed them too! Man, what a money pit that has turned out to be.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Heterosexuals can only marry someone of the opposite sex who is of legal age, not married to someone else or related to them and who is willing to marry them. Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex even if they want to. They are also not allowed to marry their sibling. So, they can't marry anyone they want.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Not according to the Supreme Court, which has said that the right to marriage isn't just the right to sign a piece of paper, but the right to marry whom you choose. Gay people can't do that.
Your summary of the Supreme Court's opinion is so vague as to be meaningless. With it, I choose to marry you.
What you mean is that the Supreme Court, which has no business defining marriage in the first place, recently decided to define marriage. Before that, the states defined marriage. And they defined it as I describe, no matter how annoyed that makes you.
And if you were the second female member, you'd be outta luck. See? No difference. There are no institutions which polygamous people are denied entry to but others are not.
What? What has gender got to do with it? As a polygamist I want to enjoy my time with Heidi. Are you about to make an argument based on only taking account of the rights of the person with multiple partners, rather than the multiple partners themselves?
The state is not "recognizing a tweaked version of Christian marriage" unless your definition of "tweaking" means "stripping away everything that makes it Christian or religious".
What about the union of precisely two consenting adults isn't extremely Christian about marriage? Are you so parochial as to not recognise that marriage is often arranged, often polygamous, and often comes with more or fewer prerequisites, privileges and restrictions?
Also, what is a "full Muslim marriage experience"?
To give one of a hundred examples, one in which I can state "I divorce you" thrice and become divorced from you, girl, but not from my two other wives.
Your tenuous argument for correlation is not the law, as held by the Supreme Court of California.
Rather than paraphrasing badly what you'd have liked the Court to imply, why don't you quote precisely the decisions you find pertinent? The Supreme Bankruptcy of California has made some funny decisions, but "there is no relationship whatever between marriage and children" would just be a blind denial of reality.
Think carefully to see if you can find a requirement that a stable, loving couple be married. Think carefully to see if you can find a requirement that a stable, loving married couple have children. Neither exist.
A correlation does not imply a requirement. The existence of a host of benefits often taken up does not imply a requirement. Go back to your classics; bone up on logic.
The reason virgins aren't parents is because they're virgins, NOT because they're not married.
Ad - op - tion.
I just realized that you may not know where babies come from.
Angry. Lame.
Maternity and Paternity law allow a parent of either gender to have that legally protected break from his or her career.
And that's great (i) where it exists; and (ii) in equal measures, IOW when the law has already been specifically changed. When I last looked into it a couple of years ago, the FMLA only covered unpaid leave, with only California in the US having specific laws providing for paid paternity leave ("family leave"). It looks like WA and NJ have also made some developments, but that's it. To reiterate why I brought this up too many posts ago:
current Western laws [are] often not suitable for monogamous gay relationships
Of course, since we're redefining what a parent is - from biological to adopting male/female in marriage to one of two adopting adults in a particular partnership - it's worth noting that it's still gotta be one of two people.
Look, gramps, there hasn't been a draft in decades. And, you may not realize this, but there are many, many married couples in the military.
What
An equal system must treat people the same, not create a separate class system for gay people...
This is the most retarded meme that has ever been accepted as "fact". There is *no* "separate class system for gay people" because "gay people" (which I'm defining as "those who are sexually attracted to their own sex") are not discriminated against. The argument isn't about straight people vs. gay people, it's about what the definition of "marriage" is. Please remove your head from Marx's butt and stop thinking in class terms.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: Marriage laws currently (and at common law) define a marriage as something between two persons of opposite sex. Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination. Think carefully.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
How do you get around ch. 20 v. 13?
Or are are you just saying that the entire old law is done away with?
Or are you talking about "gay" in the other senses? Happy, liberal, talkative, ostentatious, wearing pink shirts, generally able to share (specifically, non-sexual) affection with people regardless of gender?
Just asking.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
No, dumbass, read it again. Gays were making less money than you, and now they will make the same amount of money as you. Not more. Also, it relates to taxes on domestic partner benefits. Unless you are paying for your girlfriend/boyfriend's health insurance, which is rare, then it wouldn't even apply to your situation.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that single people shouldn't be discriminated either, though it's not clear to me how the law works for them in the US? I mean, it talks of an additional tax that unmarried partners have to pay, which doesn't seem relevant?
Although yes, all these kind of complex issues do make me think it best if marriage didn't have tax benefits at all.
The argument isn't about straight people vs. gay people, it's about what the definition of "marriage" is.
It's about the benefits that the Government gives. If it does so in a discriminatory fashion, then it's discrimination. I don't care what your definitions are.
Not sure what Marx has to do with this. In general, I note you are unable to argue your case without resorting to insults.
Marriage laws currently (and at common law) define a marriage as something between two persons of opposite sex.
Yes we know what the law is in many countries/states, that's what people are arguing against.
Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination.
I'm not sure why it matters? What is your point?
I should know to never underestimate pedantic-man.
Fair enough. Gay People have one further restriction on them than heterosexual people. They cannot marry a person they truly love.
And the only.. ONLY possible reason for this that stands up to even the most cursory logic test is: "The Bible says it's wrong." Followed closely by: "And it's icky."
This is a pretty blatant action by the majority to restrict the rights of the minority through legislation targeted specifically at naming a right only to restrict it.
Heterosexual unmarried couples in CA can't register as domestic partners (except for couples over the age of 62). That's why Google's new policy applies only to same-sex couples who are registered.
The registry itself is an attempt, by the state, to extend many of the rights and benefits available to married heterosexual couples to same-sex couples whose marriages are not recognized by the state. But there are numerous rights and benefits it does not (and can not, because of federal law) extend. A heterosexual married Googler can opt to extend Google's employee health insurance benefit to that Googler's spouse, and a homosexual domestically partnered Googler can opt to extend Google's employee health insurance benefit to that Googler's domestic partner. However, the cost of doing so for the gay Googler will be significantly higher, because the benefit the gay Googler gets (for the domestic partner) is considered taxable income. The benefit the heterosexual married Googler gets (for the spouse) is not taxable income.
All Google is doing is making up the cost differential. It isn't discriminating against anybody. You could certainly make the argument that the state is discriminating in at least two ways: 1) not recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples; 2) not allowing unmarried heterosexual couples under the age of 62 to register as domestic partners in lieu of getting married. But I doubt the state would even bother with a domestic partnership registry if the marriages of same-sex couples were on the same footing with the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Really, what would be the point?
Gay people have already outed themselves by registering their domestic partnership. Further, they out themselves by paying for the health insurance benefit for their domestic partner. Google's new policy isn't requiring any additional "outing."
I agree that it would be much simpler if the state would simply recognize same-sex marriages, rather than create a whole parallel system for dealing with same-sex couples. (Note: Gay people can, and do, get married all the time, in both religious and civil ceremonies, and have been doing so in this country for 40-50 years or more. The state can not and never has prevented gays from marrying; it does, however, refuse to accord those marriages the same status it accords opposite-sex marriages.) Another option would be to ignore the term "marriage" altogether and simply treat anyone who wants to register their relationship with the state as domestic partners or civil partners. But these things are out of Google's control, and I think Google is doing the right thing here in redressing one imbalance that is within its power to redress.
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
If it does so in a discriminatory fashion, then it's discrimination.
Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination.
I'm not sure why it matters? What is your point?
My point is that you don't get to simply declare that something "is discrimination" (much less equate it to racism) if you can't define what type of discrimination you're talking about -- namely, what you're discriminating against.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
I see nothing that indicates these benefits apply solely to same-sex domestic partnerships. Heterosexuals in a domestic partnership appear to be covered as well. If not, I think there's a large number of heterosexuals in domestic partnerships that would cry "foul", and with good cause--equality isn't a synonym for preferential treatment.
This is good for an entirely different reason, though. If this trend continues, the financial incentives for state-sanctioned marriage are reduced, which makes people less likely to be concerned with obtaining that marriage certificate. Maybe, given time, the idea that the state has any business being involved in such an intensely personal issue will fade away, and a person's marital status won't affect their tax status at all.
This has the nifty side-effect of making the gay marriage question absolutely irrelevant, which would be a huge relief. I see that issue being used quite indiscriminately as a political lever by both sides, and frankly it disgusts me.
Well, it depends how you define "natural".
A healthy woman who is not on birth control and is abstinent will have a monthly period, that's true.
But in nature, most individuals are not abstinent. Throughout history, most women had far fewer periods, because they were having sex without contraception, which meant they spent a lot of time pregnant. That's what the GP meant by "you also get adorable little babies".
Of course his bit about "enormous reduction in breast cancer risk" is misleading, because he's ignoring the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are actually quite hazardous. Women had much shorter life expectancies when they were having all that unprotected sex, especially before modern medical hygiene practices (like washing your hands before delivering a baby).
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.