| State health benefits for same sex partners .....
Posted: 11/23/2006 12:41:20 AM | So google Alaska and same sex health benefits issue and tell me your opinion?
The ACLU reared it's head up here and decided that a law in our constitution that is like ten years old is a bad law. An Alaska supreme court judge agreed. He told the governor to fix things. He did. He fixed it with the legislature to freeze any movement of doing anything till the people vote on it.
See, a while back, most of the people in Alaska voted that marriage was an event for hetrosexuals. Not homosexuals. A few years later same sex couples working for the state decided they wanted the same health benefits as hetro couples since they saw themselves as married but not legally married. They feel since the people of Alaska won't allow them to be married, well....as I said the above has happened.
Now some see this as an attempt of the homosexual community to get a foot in the door so when elections come up again they can (if it passes) show they are being accepted as couples with the same health benefits as hetro couples but are still unmarried. So why not allow marriage?
Now understand, Alaska most definetly has it's wild side. Bi-sexuality is probably more favored up here then homosexuality. My opinion. But even so most feel hetros have the right to marriage and no other type of couples.
The good thing that is arising from this is a possible change in the state health benefits rules. people are thinking that anyone who works for the state should have the choice to list a friend, relative, lover or married partner (anyone they wish essentially) as the reciever of their benefits instead of just a married hetro partner. Of course this is not getting ground with the homosexual community because it defeats their purpose for why they began this thing.
Alaskan's are ready for a change if it is a good thing in almost any area. The gay community had an agenda with this and unknowingly will be the catalist of changing an old policy into a better policy. | |
|
| State health benefits for same sex partners .....
Posted: 11/29/2006 9:23:14 AM | First, the term is heterosexual, not hetro. That irks me like nails on a chalk board, but at least you were consistent.
I am really sick of hearing a lot of anti-gay/pro-gay discussions, so I really don't know why I am posting.
Simply, my opinion is, sexual preference belongs to the individual, not to a legislative body. Why not just give EVERYBODY the same rights under the constitution??? What a novel idea. And let things like sexual preference remain behind closed doors, or open ones if they so choose.
Ever hear of separation of church and state? Heterosexual marriage is one defined by the bible, not by the law. The law is defined by the people, and the majority of the population, sorry to say, is not always right.
Look at slavery, the majority of the population WANTED slaves. Was that a moral or just thing to want...no...it was selfish...just like laws that take rights away from homosexuals.
Ever known someone who is gay or had a gay relative??? Would you like to be the one to tell them that they have less rights than you? That when their spouse dies that all their property goes to family, and even wills, in some cases, won't be enough to protect their assets. Would you like to be the one to break the news that you will now be voting to treat them like second class citizens because of their sexual preference???
Why not focus your energy on some of the REAL problems in the United States. Like pollution (we cause 25% of world Carbon emissions), or rape (mostly done by heterosexuals!!!) or murder, or child abuse, etc. etc. I think that these are topics that have more of a moral obligation to figure out than homosexuality. | |
|
| State health benefits for same sex partners .....
Posted: 11/30/2006 10:58:24 PM |
Heterosexual marriage is one defined by the bible, not by the law. The law is defined by the people, and the majority of the population, sorry to say, is not always right.
Wrong on both counts.
1) The laws of the State define legal marriage.
2) The laws of the state are not defined by the people, they are proposed by the legislature, one house or the other, debated by the proposing house and then, if approved in the originating body, sent to the other house for debate and vote. Once they are approved by both houses of the legislature they are sent to the Governor of the State for approval or veto. The people, per se, have nothing to do with it in most instances. Ocassionally there is a referendum and then the people get to vote on whether the law should pass. That is the exception.
Don't know how they do it in Canada, but then I don't live in Canada and this is an Alaskan board, that is how it is done here. | |
|
|
Home
login 