Refman: Many companies are finding it not only ok but necessary to give health benefits to live-in significant others. Most of them require six months with the company and they require that, if the live in other is not a spouce, that they have been at the same residence for six months as well. I remember reading that the Greater Houston Partnership was trying to get the city to repeal its ban on same-gender benefits because it reflected badly on businesses in the city trying to attract the best employees. The complaint was that there were "significant others" of their employees who might be looking for government jobs and it would cut down on medical benefits for them as well. To me, the significance of this is that the big companies that are part of the GHP don't do ANYTHING that isn't good for the bottom line and if fraud was rampant in their systems, they would simply cut the programs. None of the large companies who have been offering these types of benefits for some time now (Starbucks and Disney both come to mind) have found any more problems with insurance fraud than they found before. The irony about the sodomy law is that in most states, the law is "anal or oral sex between two un-married individuals." That INCLUDES pre-marrital sex between men and women.
Group Hopes Texas Sodomy Case Heard Staff, Associated Press, 7/16/2002 A gay rights group took its case against Texas' 123-year-old anti-sodomy law to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. Lambda Legal filed its appeal on behalf of two men who were arrested in 1998 after sheriff's deputies responding to a report of an intruder entered an apartment through an open door and spotted them having sex. The men pleaded no contest and were fined $200 each. Only Texas, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma expressly prohibit homosexual acts. Texas' law carries a fine of up to $500. "This law harms all people who believe that their homes should be protected from governmental intrusion," said Lee Taft, director of Lambda Legal's regional office. "In particular, it brands lesbian and gay Texans as second-class citizens and is used to justify all kinds of discrimination." A state appeals court upheld the law, and Texas' highest court refused to hear the case.
I guess you're stickin to the missionary, only for procreation, style stuff then, Ref. If so, I'm sorry for your wife. And for you. These decidedly puritan laws aren't just about gay sex. They're about just about any kind of sex that's halfway creative. Reminds me of that Simpsons episode where they realize they've forgotten that drinking's supposed to be illegal and revert to a hundred year old statute. These laws are outdated and unenforced, except when someone forces a test case to overturn them. And everybody knows it. And they will be overturned. Cohen: Even though the entire staff of our theater is straight, our insurance company wouldn't give us life insurance. You know, cause we're a theater company. All of these threads make me think of that old German character Woyzeck. He's meant to be insane, but is saner than anyone else in the play. In a particularly lucid moment, he grabs a guy who's been fighting with him, clutches him to his breast and exclaims, "Friend! My friend! The world!!!" Make of that what you will. Your friendly neighborhood Batman, B. Jones
I never said anything about my personal bedroom activities. All I said is that the state isn't going to give legal recognition to a relationship where the only sex in it would be "illegal" sex. I also didn't say that it was right. I am not a proponent of gay marriage. I never have been. I never will be. But I don't find the issue to be so important as to create a huge argument about it. People should be happy living their lives, whatever that happiness may be. As for your company not getting insurance, that sucks. Have you spoken to an independent insurance broker? If not, I can probably get you the name of one.
I appreciate it, Refman. But I think we got it worked out somehow. Now that we've got a staff and I'm on the art side I don't deal with that sort of thing, thankfully. I was just responding to Cohen's post about the hair salon. Your bit on gay marriage is all I ask of anyone. You don't have to be a proponent of it. If you don't feel it necessary to create a huge argument about it, I guess you wouldn't stand in the way of it if it was necessary to someone else's happiness. But either way, it's nice that you agree people should be happy. That's my main point in this thread. As for the other stuff, I'm pleased for you and your wife. I don't think those laws have ever stopped anyone from anything and I don't think their violation has been prosecuted in the last ten years except in test cases. And Ref, really do find me if you come to our show. I want to buy you a beer.
