Montana Universities Must Offer Health Insurance to Gay Employees' Partners

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by JoAnnP38, Jan 3, 2005.

Loading...
  1. JoAnnP38

    JoAnnP38 Member

    NY Times Article (requires free registration)

    In my purely reactive opinion, it seems to me that there is something more going on vis-a-vi same sex marriage/domestic partnerships than just judicial activism. Decisions like this seem to be more and more common. Is it possible that our laws were written in such an optimistic manner as to not preclude such relationships? Isn't the public backlash we witnessed with the various state amendments/laws actually codifying discrimination since we can't depend on the righteous sensibilities of our legal scholars to maintain the status quo?

    A poll quoted by (perhaps commissioned by) Fox News indicated that when asked the question whether gay marriage or domestic partnerships should be legalized, the majority of americans agreed. Based on this, it seems that this whole ball of wax turns on who has the right to use the word marriage to describe a domestic parnership. Oh well, I do believe that gay marriage is inevitable based on the ever increasing acceptance and normalization of gay relationships that I have seen over my life time. Until then I'll just have to appreciate the struggle.
     
  2. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    In this particular situation, Montana was bound to lose because of other decisions they had made. The universities offered benefits to unmarried heterosexual partners. Not to allow it for all unmarried employees smacks of discrimination.



    Tom Nixon
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I have to agree here with Tom. While I oppose such theologically I cannot oppose it politically.

    The only reasons I have ever opposed beneftis for domestic gay partnerships was that unmarried heterosexual partnerships were discriminated against. I actually oppose these, theolgically as well, but not politically.

    We live in a (relatively) democratic society, not a theocrasy.
     

Share This Page