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."

Comments

Why so discriminating?

[bbqsrc]

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...

Re:Why so discriminating?

[txoof]

This is the angle I can never figure out. Homosexuality isn't like robbery or assault, it doesn't affect anyone except for those that participate in it. And, no, alternative sexual orientation is not a crime. The argument that a extending rights such as marriage to gay couples somehow lessens the social value of marriage is ridiculous. Following that same logical path, all those that do not practice christian marriage (Jewish, Islamic, Navajo) are also decreasing the social value of "christian" marriage.

I hope that Google's position in this matter will help influence other companies and eventually federal and state policies positively. If enough companies throw their weight behind this issue, it will become standard to offer a salary benefit for gay partners to cover the tax difference. Once it becomes standard, you can bet that companies will start lobbying congress to solve this problem in order to save them money.

Aside from the tax issues, how can anyone that appreciates the freedoms offered by our constitution and the rationale backing it in the declaration of independence, willfully discriminate against another based solely on private, personal preference? After all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal."

Re:Why so discriminating?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Christianity is NOT anti gay, some (most) of the christian churches are anti-gay. They base this on a selective reading of the Old Testament which they use to justify an opinion they already held previously. The "christians" who use their faith to justify anti-gay bigotry should be told to read Leviticus in its entirety and fuck off. Especially those in US churches that look more like Old Testament eschatological cults than anything teaching the New Testament values of love and forgiveness.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[rjch]

Anal-abusing males and group-masturbating females (commonly known as lesbians) do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth and USA in particular.

Contributing children towards Planet Earth is something that governments in general are going to have to discourage. At least one country on Earth already does. The planet simply cannot sustain a growing population indefinitely.

I should also note that many gay or lesbian couples do adopt children, or undergo fertility treatment to have children.

Since it is the job of the future generation to care about the current generation when it becomes elderly, people who do not contribute DNS to the future generation, shall be required to shoulder extra burden for the common good of the society.

In general, the elderly that the current generation care for are their own parents, not other "generic" elderly people. Given your logic, then gay and lesbian people are doing themselves a disservice by leaving themselves without someone to care for them when they grow older.

In Europe and South America many countries actually had taxes for healthy 25+, who were unmarried and 30+ still without kids.

Whilst I've never heard of such a tax, I suspect that "had" is the operative word if such taxes did actually exist. We are already straining environmental resources significantly with the population we have. We do not need more to contribute to the problem.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[sqrt(2)]

I always say, if people go to hell for sodomy, then you're going to hell for shaving and wearing a cotton-poly blended T-shirt - both things mentioned in Leviticus...I don't think it specifically mentions T-shirts though.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[somersault]

Even the new testament criticises homosexual relationships (and the only laws of the old testament that were "updated" in the new testament were ones to do with sacrifices and what you could put into your body).

I just Googled to find passages and opinions on it. One site tries to say that the bible is simply criticising non-Christian worship practices when it complains about same sex relationships, but that's clearly a load of horse shit. It would just say so if that was the case.

It also tries to claim that the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah is nothing to do with Sodomy and that "know" literally means know rather than "have sex with", when Lot clearly offers his daughters to "do with what you will" instead of the men.

I don't believe in any of it any more, but like I said I find it pathetic when people try to twist their own scriptures to make them more politically correct instead of just manning up. If you don't agree with your scriptures, then stop worshipping your bigoted God.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Hognoxious]

Yes - and they all caught Gomorrahrear.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[macs4all]

Anal-abusing males and group-masturbating females (commonly known as lesbians) do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth and USA in particular.

I can't find the cite right now, but I have heard that something like 60% of gay males have one or more biological children.

Next?

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Rogerborg]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that [the robber-barons in our Country Club are just as good as any ennobled British lord or monarch]."

Fixed that for them. That is precisely what they meant, after all: that any rich white man was as worthy as any noble white man, not some laughably ridiculous notion that blacks or women had any worth.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Homosexuality isn't like robbery or assault, it doesn't affect anyone except for those that participate in it.

It affects the people who are offended by it. They are offended--outraged even. And in a democratic society, these outraged people have a voice, and these voices in total are loud enough to force governments to punish the people who's behavior caused the offended people to become offended.

In fact, offense doesn't even really come into it. You can just have enough people who simply don't like another group and who will vote in punitive laws that will punish that group for simply existing. This is Democracy 101, otherwise known as the Tyranny of the Majority or at least the tyranny of the people who control the majority.

And this is largely how democracy is practiced today. And in case you think this only works one way, consider other things which have been banned/restricted like indoor smoking, fox hunting and chemical equipment ownership. In an age where the will of the people is absolute, people get what they vote for; or what other people paid to get them to vote for.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[bcmm]

They base this on a selective reading of the Old Testament which they use to justify an opinion they already held previously

All Christians believe whatever they want, and justify it by selective reading of the Bible. Perhaps the fact that so many end up with "New Testament values of love and forgiveness" is comforting evidence that not everyone's inherent tendencies are towards violent opposition to people unlike themselves, but I don't think it has any bearing on what "correct" Christianity is.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Rogerborg]

[Anti-gay Christians] base this on a selective reading of the Old Testament

• Gen 19:5-8: "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.' But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, 'Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.'"
• Lev 18:22-23: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
• Lev 20:13: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
• Cor 6:9: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
• Tim 1:9-10: "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"
• Rom 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

Now, I fully agree with you that the majority of anti-gay Christians are anti-gays who use the above passages to justify their bigotry, but hey, it's called bigotry for a reason.

However, I'll have to challenge you to select other passages from the bible that contradict or refute the ones quoted above. Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda about loving and forgiving sinners, but I don't recall him saying that it wasn't a sin.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Nuskrad]

That's like taxing tampons or pads because they know that 50% of people need them.

In the UK (and I believe the rest of the EU) they DO tax sanitary products. It took quite a lot of campaigning to get them placed in the 'reduced' rate of tax (5%) rather than the 'luxury' rate (currently 17.5%, soon to be 20%) as well. See here for example.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[QuantumRiff]

A guy in CA was collecting signatures for a bill to really protect the value and sanctity of marriage. He was trying to ban divorce.

Strangely, not many of these people were willing to sign.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm not much to argue about the finer details of those particular scriptures; but I'd appreciate it if people recognized why Sodom and Gomorrah had to be expunged from the earth. The place was full of assholes! At one point they tortured some 11 year old girl to death for giving a starving man bread, because the girl was nice to someone (what a crime!). They tormented those in need. Any time someone new showed up, they turned a sadistic eye towards them immediately.

I think this is the most important lesson here. They didn't come to "have sex with" the newcomers; they came to brutally rape them.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[supercrisp]

I know a guy who's a former rabbi and is currently a professor of religion. He told me that the Sodom and Gomorrah story is about hospitality law and not homosexuality. Basically, you don't just rape strangers. You take them in, feed them, and so on. Even offer them one (or some) of your women. He told me a lot more about it, but I'm afraid that I can't recall all of it. I'm not offering this as a counter-argument, just as a possible interesting avenue to consider.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[TheCarp]

I don't remember exactly how it came up, but a particular jewish friend of mine and I ended up talking about the Lot story.

She was stunned to hear how Christians taught the story and pulled up the Torah, read the passage and pretty much translated it word for word the way I had it in the English. Then she became absolutely adamant that the intended meaning was that the men from the town wanted to beat the men up, not have sex with them.

Her claim was that it was not about homosexuality but a city with gangs that didn't like outsiders. I can't say as I have studied it enough to have my own opinion, but that was her take on it.

-Steve

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Rantastic]

Sure, that filthy hippy Jesus waffled some peacenik tree hugging propaganda...

Actually, Jesus was a tree killer, not a tree huger.

Matthew 21:18: Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

Just sayin

Re:Why so discriminating?

[medcalf]

I'm all for getting the State out of marriage. That should be a religious proposition, rather than a civil one. Benefits, taxes and the like should simply not take into account people's marital status, and instead should treat each adult as an independent entity. If you want to create a default "we share everything" contract, that allows for things like making decisions about childcare, powers of attorney and the like automatic, and that any set of people can go down to the justice of the peace and obtain for a nominal fee, I see no problem with that. It would provide the benefits marriage now provides, without the State getting involved in people's relationships.

However, your read of the Declaration is way off. It was an argument against private judgement, but an argument against class. By declaring that all men are created equal, the Declaration says that the circumstances of your birth (the wealth of your parents, the color of your skin, physical handicaps and so forth) do not change your value as a person. In other words, aristocracy is (if you accept the Declaration's self-evident truths) inherently a perversion of natural law, setting some above others by the mere circumstances of their birth.

The immediate problem that arises is "what about slavery?" If we're all supposed to be created equal, why did that not apply to slaves. The answer is not a moral answer, but a crass political answer. The economy of the South was predicated on slavery; take away slavery and the South would have sunk into deep poverty. (Even if not true, and I am not convinced that it is true, it was a view nearly universally held by Southerners in the 1780s, when the Constitution was written.) The question of allowing slavery was thus an existential question for the South: if slavery were not allowed, the southern states could not be part of the United States and continue to exist with any hope of prosperity. For the North, slavery was not an issue, simply because their economy was predicated on shipping and trade instead of pre-industrial agriculture. So for the northern states, the imperative was to hold the states together into a single country, to avoid the constant warfare that existed in Europe from the fall of Rome to the end of WWII. Essentially, the South would not yield on slavery, and the North would not yield on there being a single nation in the former colonies. The obvious compromise was to allow slavery, despite the fact that it was a contravention of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

If you see in that the setup for the Civil War, congratulations. It has been said that all of American history can be summed up as "Pickett's Charge, the events leading to it and the consequences thereof." This misunderstanding of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, along with the death of Federalism (particularly subsidiarity) and the triumph of the French Enlightenment over the English Enlightenment, are some of the sadder of those consequences.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[ceoyoyo]

The passages in liviticus are surprisingly clear for the bible. The Sodom and Gomorrah story doesn't necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality though. Trying to rape gods kid would surely qualify for extermination even if it weren't homosexual rape.

This was actually a fun conversation I had with the local jehova's witness lady who seemed to think an unmarried guy living with female roommates was somehow at high risk for "catching gay" along with other seemingly incompatible sins.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Robyrt]

He told me that the Sodom and Gomorrah story is about hospitality law and not homosexuality.

This is supported by Ezekiel chapter 16:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me.

The men of Sodom were certainly sodomites, but that's not why their city burned.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Jawnn]

Oh, sure. Typical gay-agenda, liberal bleating about the rank hypocrisy that pervades most of what passes for Christianity in the U.S. today. How dare you call attention to such inconvenient contradictions in their book of folk tales... er, holy writ? A lot of people have paid a lot of good money to good Christian leaders like Ted Haggerty and George Rekers so that they can feel good about hating gay people. And now you want them to start hating shell-fish eaters and wearers of poly-cotton blends?
You insensitive clod.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[corbettw]

The New Testament has some pretty choice words for gay behavior, too. And early Christian writers were unanimous in their condemnation of homosexual sex. You really can't be gay and be a Christian, they're incompatible.

The easiest thing is for gays to wake up to this fact and abandon Christianity en masse and join a more tolerant religion. Or better yet, none at all.

(I say this as a former Christian who's now an avowed atheist. Once you really understand what religion preaches, there's really no point in continuing the charade; you just need to dump it completely.)

Re:Why so discriminating?

[Taevin]

Language is defined through its use. It's undoubtedly true that the word "sodomy" holds the meaning it does because people used it to refer to some form of "sexual deviancy." Consider also how in modern times the phrase "begging the question" has all but lost its original meaning and now is a synonym for "raising the question." That it is now used incorrectly does not change the original meaning.

Ironically, you're begging the question (petitio principii--assuming the initial point) with your argument. You're saying that 1. the word sodomy (modern) means "unnatural sex," 2. the word derives from the Latin meaning "sin of Sodom," 3. therefore the people of Sodom practiced sodomy. There's a disconnect there because you're assuming that the "sin of Sodom" is "unnatural sex," but this is an unproven claim.

If the "sin of Sodom" is instead an extreme lack of hospitality, then the word sodomy should refer to that, but will still be used improperly to refer to "unnatural sex" (and homosexual sex in particular) because that is the common meaning. Just like begging the question.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[ElectricTurtle]

Sixty-four nations have fertility rates below replacement, and almost every nation on earth has seen a reduction in fertility in the last 50 years (play around with that spreadsheet, it's an eye-opener). All of the most populous developing nations have seen fertility fall by 2-3+ children per woman. However because this reality conflicts with the political agenda of the green cult, many people are still burying their heads in the sand steadfastly believing that a Malthusian disaster is right around the corner.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[whisper_jeff]

You are a pathetic, disgusting human being. That you would support depriving people of equality because they do something you dislike is utterly repulsive. Even operating with your utterly flawed logic (and it is utterly flawed), you are supporting depriving people of the rights that others enjoy simply because they do something you do not like. They are doing it consensually, breaking no laws, and harming no person nor thing, yet you support depriving them the right to live a committed and loving life with someone else and enjoy the same benefits (and requirements) that we all enjoy.

I say again, you are a pathetic and disgusting human being.

Re:Why so discriminating?

[BJ_Covert_Action]

You know, I've discussed this issue with my mother and some of my closest friends quite often. You see, being raised in the country, I was subjected to a lot of typcal, 'orthodox' Christian upbringing. I was always taught homosexuality was wrong and blah blah blah...When I grew up I got a brain and started thinking for myself. So then I started discussing these matters, with more rigor and critical thought than previously, with my family and friends. My mother and a few of my friends are, quite openly, appalled by homosexuality. As such, I have tried to discuss with them, many times, what kind of logical reasoning they can use to discriminate against homosexuals. After various discussions where I shot the, 'sanctity of marriage, unhealthy lifestyles, think of the children,' and other such reasons full of logical holes, I was pretty convinced that I had demonstrated, successfully, that there was no good, objective reason to oppress homosexual rights. I was pretty proud of this matter because I've never enjoyed the idea of targeting a specific group for being different (part of growing up in a subculture click of friends I suppose).

So, after all that, I figured those folks I'd talked to would change their mind. Did they? Nah. When it boiled down to it, after all that, I got this simple, one line answer:

I don't care what anyone says, homosexuality is just plain wrong. That's all there is to it!

So in the end, this kind of stubborn bigotry isn't founded on logic or intelligence. It's not well-reasoned or thought out. It's simple, biased, self-comforting, fear-of-change, stubbornness. Looking for an angle, or trying to figure out why folks want to put down homosexuals is folly for that reason alone. There is no logic to it. It's simple faith-based stupidity. This one simple fact is probably the single largest contributor to making me abandon my own faith a few years back. In the end, it was all just a bunch of silly crap.

Still unfair..

[Pvt_Ryan]

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?

Re:Still unfair..

[dingen]

Just convince your employer that your girl is actually a dude. Photoshop could help out, but maybe it's not even needed.

Re:Still unfair..

[gutnor]

Marriage is a tax and legal affair. It is like creating a company or a trust with a business partner : Both of you can stay independent self-employed and do the same job but you will not get the same benefits. (and constraints)

Marriage is the mechanism to subscribe to the benefits you feel discriminated against - just like filling you tax return. Marriage is not a declaration of Love or some blood pact before ${diety}, it is a legal contract and nothing more.
The only real discrimination was to restrict this legal contract to people of specific sexual orientation.

Re:Still unfair..

[Xarius]

In your country, a heterosexual couple can actually get married.

A gay couple can't, the unmarried heterosexual couples are depriving themselves of the benefit this type of contract provides by choice.

Re:Still unfair..

[Nyder]

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?

Thats all "legal" marriage is. A tax break.

Love has nothing to do with marriage, regardless what the world wants to believe.

Sure, you can say marriage is the public commit process of your love. And maybe it is. But you have to go sign legal documents, that bonds you and your partner together, in a contract, that comes down to money.

Get divorced? It's all about the money split.
Partner goes into debt, oh ya, they just put you in debt also. legally.

Re:Still unfair..

[Pharmboy]

Indeed. To me, it would be fair if we simply got rid of all tax deductions for being married, children, home loan interest, etc. and just have an overall lower tax rate. I paid my home off by making sacrifices, yet I pay more taxes because I was responsible enough to do so. And why should I subsidize someone else's children? I don't have kids, so I pay yet higher taxes than those who decided to procreate. If you want kids, fine, have them, but a tax deduction for children is no different than me giving you a hand out for the effort.

In a nutshell, I pay way more taxes because I am financially responsible and have no kids. And before those with kids (and deductions) say "But you don't understand how expensive it is to have kids", I would remind them that it was their choice, not mine, and there is no sense of fairness in me having to pay for part of raising their kids.

Re:Still unfair..

[nosferatu1001]

No it is not, as the civil marriage laws have nothing relating to a religious observance in them.

In fact civil partnerships have absolutely no "standard" wording at all, unlike civil marriages, meaning you can actively denounce religion if you want and it is fine (as long as the registrar doesnt panic, that is....) - we were told we could write our entire service if we wanted.

Yes the nominal head is both State and Church, but the actual PM is purely a civil role.

Re:Still unfair..

[forand]

By and large I agree with you, however, you have benefited greatly from a society which chooses to educate children. So while I don't see why you should pay MORE to educate the children of the US I believe you should pay an equal share because the benefit is for society not just the parents.

Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[frovingslosh]

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.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[bersl2]

So, the government can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (prevent a same-sex couple from attaining the same marriage a differing-sex couple is entitled to), but a private-sector company cannot?

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[lena_10326]

OK. So, you are upset google is compensating gays in long term relationships for a tax code that is discriminatory against gays and you wish to eliminate unfair wages based on sexual orientation. So then by implication I can assume you are also wishing to legalize gay marriage so that we can eliminate the federal tax code discrimination against long term gay relationships in order to stamp out google's wage discrimination which is based on countering the federal tax code discrimination against gays?

Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[sqrt(2)]

consistent logical argument
US politics abandoned that quaint idea decades ago.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[frovingslosh]

So do you believe it is always OK for businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, or only do so when it favors homosexuals? I strongly suspect that you are a hypocrite and would be protesting any stated policy that advocated paying homosexuals less than straights rather than more.

Re:Paying straight people less, lawsuit?

[hedwards]

What discrimination? For crying out loud, they aren't being allowed to keep the money, that money is going to the IRS for use by the federal government.

Re:Well, heck! We can all be gay!

[macara]

Bromance, now pays better than expected.

Five months maternity leave?

[xaxa]

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!

Re:Five months maternity leave?

[sqrt(2)]

Maternity leave is one area where the US is particularly behind the rest of the world. In general US labor laws are tilted in favor of the business you work for, what will be most profitable for them, unlike much of Europe where the employees actually have more power in many situations than their employers (as it should be).

Re:Andrew

[r00t]

Sure, why not? We tax alcohol and tobacco too. Are you suggesting that this is a sin tax error?

Two wrongs don't make a right

[Moraelin]

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.

Re:Two wrongs don't make a right

[hedwards]

It's not equivalent. In the vast majority of America, there is no same sex marriage or equivalent and in all of America there isn't a federally recognized union. Straight folks OTOH that are just in committed relationships have the option of getting married and collecting both the benefits as well as the responsibilities of being married. As long as it's not available to same sex couples it's not the same thing as choosing not to be.

The other thing is that the couples end up more or less exactly where they would be were it not for a bunch of bigots refusing to grant equal rights under the law. Perhaps you should do some research rather than making bigoted claims over the internet. I assume that you're going to go back and ask David Duke what the rest of his argument goes like.

Re:Well, heck! We can all be gay!

[TheRaven64]

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.

not really, because everybody benefits

[r00t]

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.

Re:So Much For Employee Privacy!

[barzok]

What business does Google have to snoop into it's employee's sexual preferences?

The employee would have to declare that they need domestic partner health benefits. Google isn't "snooping", it's information the employee is providing.

What about Google employees who are straight who live with someone who they are not married, they going to see extra pay?

If they qualify for domestic partner health benefits, I should think so.

it hurts those it's intended to help

[r00t]

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.

Re:it hurts those it's intended to help

[priegog]

Quite simply, because in our role in a society, being productive is important, but producing offspring is much more important (in a long term kind of way). And a society who has foresight would be wise to protect this matter, because companies (who think short-term and in any case don't care about society in general) sure as hell won't.
The matter of companies over here being hessitant to hire is indeed a problem but IMO it's leaps and bounds better than the alternative (ie: to let them can women just because they want to have children, and all of the consequences that that would bring). The "hiring difficulties" eventually get counteracted by the NEED to have employees, and quite honestly I don't think the number of jobs that would be created by easier firing procedures would be so great so as to even consider it. We are all (or were, we're really coming out of it) in an economic crisis, and to blame the unemployment on these laws is being myopic at best. In any case, to have an atmosphere of job insecurity and "trash contracts" is not precisely ideal.

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.

Aside from what I just said:
a) Having a kid is not "abandoning" your job
b) Why does everybody else get hurt, except (and very marginally) the company's profit, when having to pay for the substitute's salary?
c) Even if the rest of the staff were made to pick up the slack, it'd be "for a bigger cause" and sure as hell they'll be able to enjoy the same "support" when they decide to have a kid. But since you seem to be such a diehard capitalism purist, I'll put it in terms you'll like: As long as they're in work hours, the company OWNS their time, and as such they should just think of it as work as usual... and if any extra hours are derived from it (totally optional, as per the law) they'll be rightly compensated for it.
d) The substitute does not deserve the job. That's why she's a substitute. If she did, she'd HAVE said job. Usual capitalism and job market rules apply. And besides, she TOO would be able to benefit from maternity leave when she needed it. It's not beneficial for anybody (except the company) for the workplace to become a jungle where it's either eat or be eaten.

God hates shrimp

[AlterEager]

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Re:God hates shrimp

[fractoid]

Now you're just being shelfish.

Re:God hates shrimp

[nottheusualsuspect]

Man, I really wish that you would stop trying to mussel your way into the conversation.

Re:God hates shrimp

[somersault]

As long as you're not watching pr4wn

Re:Andrew

[icebraining]

Of course this screws over the non-married heterosexual couples

But they can get married, so why don't they?

If they don't want to get married, but think unmarried gay couples shouldn't get benefits they don't have, the solution is obvious: lobby for gay marriage.

Re:So Much For Employee Privacy!

[PoderOmega]

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).

Re:Well, heck! We can all be gay!

[Theaetetus]

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.

Re:So Much For Employee Privacy!

[mdwh2]

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.

thanks scrooge

[circletimessquare]

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

" "At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge", said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?", asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons", said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?", demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still", returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?", said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course", said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude", returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when want is keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!", Scrooge replied.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone", said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned--they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die", said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides--excuse me--I don't know that."
"But you might know it", observed the gentleman.
"It's not my business", Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him."

fuck you fucking corporatists,

God Hates Figs

[GoodBuddy]

Yes, this is the origin of the saying "God Hates Figs" The Westboro Baptist Church just got things messed up in their minds.

Re:Well, heck! We can all be gay!

[Theaetetus]

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.