We've noticed that customers who have purchased Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch also purchased books by Ian Ayres. For this reason, you might like to know that Ian Ayres's Straightforward : How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights is now available . You can order your copy at a savings of 34% by following the link below.
Same Sex Marriage
24 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Same Sex Marriage
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:30 pm
I wrote a paper on Same Sex Marriage awhile back for my Law class. I ordered a ton of books from Amazon. Am I pegged to receive Gay Marriage books for the rest of my life, now? :?
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:44 pm
Same-Sex Marriage
By Candy Stair
Circa December 2004
The movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be presumed unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate that it furthered a compelling state interest. In response to this decision the state constitution was amended to allow the legislature to preserve that restriction. A similar court decision in Alaska in 1998 led to an even stronger constitutional amendment, itself defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In further reaction to the Hawaii case, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996) provided that no state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, and also defined marriage for federal-law purposes as opposite-sex. The majority of the states also passed their own "marriage protection acts."
In Vermont, after that state's Supreme Court held in 1999 that the state must extend to same-sex couples the same benefits that married couples receive, the legislature in 2000 created the status of "civil union" to fulfill that mandate.
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage violated the state constitution, and in February 2004 that court further held that a "civil union" law would not be sufficient, and on May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state in the United States where same-sex marriage per se is legal. A constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Judicial Court's decision has been given initial approval by the legislature. The soonest it could be voted on by the people is November 2006.
Currently, only one man and one woman can be joined in matrimony and have their marriages recognized by the state, except for residents of Massachusetts who successfully won a court battle for the right to marry. Same-sex couples were able to obtain marriage licenses in San Francisco, CA, and in various towns in New Mexico and New York for short intervals of time during 2004. However, none were able to register their marriages.
As of August, 2004, 37 states have enacted “Defense of Marriage Acts” (DOMAs) that ban same-sex marriage. Other states have similar legislation pending. 3 states (AK, NE, and NV) have amended their state constitutions to ban SSM. 4 states (MD, OR, WI, WY) have marriage laws that specifically prohibit SSM. 5 states (CT, NJ, NM, and RI) and DC have no explicit prohibition of SSM. And 1 state (MA) allows SSM, but only to residents of the state.
In the US, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) federally defines marriage as a union between one man and one women as husband and wife, and allows states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. DOMA was in response to state rulings in favor of same-sex marriages, such as in Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont. Worries that GLBT advocates would use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to require legal acts, records and proceedings executed in one state to be recognized in all other states, became realities. In turn, conservatives have been calling for a federal marriage amendment (H.J.RES.56) that would permanently define marriage in the US Constitution as a union only between a man and a woman, and would not allow states to rule otherwise.
Fifty years ago the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in the landmark case of Perez v. Lippold, striking down California’s ban on interracial marriage. A case that homosexual’s reference as their right to same-sex marriage.
In this proceeding in mandamus, petitioners seek to compel the county clerk of Los Angeles County to issue them a certificate of registry (Civ.Code, sec. 69a) and a **18 license to marry. (Civ.Code, sec. 69.) In the application for a license, petitioner Andrea Perez states that she is a white person and petitioner Sylvester Davis that he is a Negro. Respondent refuses to issue the certificate and license, invoking Civil Code section 69, which provides: '* * * no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.'
Civil Code section 69 implements Civil Code section 60, which provides: 'All marriages of white persons with [N]egroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulatto[s] are illegal and void.' This section originally appeared in the Civil Code in 1872, but at that time it prohibited marriages only between white persons and Negroes or mulatto[s]. It *713 succeeded a statute prohibiting such marriages and authorizing the imposition of certain criminal penalties upon persons contracting or solemnizing them. (Stats.1850, Ch. 140, p. 424.) Since 1872, Civil Code section 60 has been twice amended, first to prohibit marriages between white persons and Mongolians (Stats.1901, p. 335) and subsequently to prohibit marriages between white persons and members of the Malay race. (Stats.1933, p. 561.)
Petitioners contend that the statutes in question are unconstitutional on the grounds that they prohibit the free exercise of their religion and deny to them the right to participate fully in the sacraments of that religion. They are members of the Roman Catholic Church. They maintain that since the church has no rule forbidding marriages between Negroes and Caucasians, they are entitled to receive the sacrament of matrimony.
The provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that Congress shall make no law 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' is encompassed in the concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment. State legislatures are therefore no more competent than Congress to enact such a law. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352. They may, however, regulate conduct for the protection of society, and insofar as their regulations are directed towards a proper end and are not unreasonably discriminatory, they may indirectly affect religious activity without infringing the constitutional guarantee. Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not. Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at pages 303, 304, 60 S.Ct. at page 903.
The regulation of marriage is considered a proper function of the state. It is well settled that a legislature may declare monogamy to be the 'law of social life under its dominion,' even though such a law might inhibit the free exercise of certain religious practices. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U.S. 145, 166, 25 L.Ed. 244; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 343, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637. If the miscegenation law under attack in the present proceeding is directed at a social evil and employs a reasonable means to prevent that evil, it is valid regardless of its incidental effect upon the conduct of particular religious groups. If, on the other hand, the law is discriminatory and irrational, *714 it unconstitutionally restricts not only religious liberty but the liberty to marry as well.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an area of personal liberty not yet wholly delimited. 'While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.' Italics added: Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 29 A.L.R. 1446. Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the **19 state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means.
No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably discriminatory or arbitrary. The state's interest in public education, for example, does not empower the Legislature to compel school children to receive instruction from public teachers only, for it would thereby take away the right of parents to 'direct the up-bringing and education of children under their control.' Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468. Again, the state's vital concern in the prevention of crime and the mental health of its citizens does not empower the Legislature to deprive 'individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring' by authorizing the sterilization of criminals upon an arbitrary basis of classification and without a fair hearing. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 536, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1111, 86 L.Ed. 1655.[FN1]
*715 The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, 'We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.' Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, 316 U.S. at page 541, 62 S.Ct. at page 1113. Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws. actual marriages.
Without the right to marry, same-sex couples have sought other ways to legalize their families, with varying success. Lambda Legal continues to support these efforts by drafting laws, expanding family recognition through the courts and empowering the LGBT community through education about their existing rights and options. Wills, health proxies, co-parent adoptions, co-leases, name changes: There are many legal ways that same-sex couples try to protect each other and their children. Still, desired protections may be unavailable, unsuccessful in court or not always respected by individuals, businesses or the government.
Homosexual couples point out that they are just as capable of raising children and having a healthy family as a heterosexual couple (adoptions for men, and adoption or artificial insemination for women).
Also, many point at that no fault divorce laws have reduced civil marriage to a contract, and all couples should have equal access to that contract.
The biggest argument in support is allowing same-sex couples the same legal protections, such as access to health care as a dependent, access to spouse in a medical emergency, inheritance, etc.
It should be noted that most supporters are not asking any particular religion to sanctify the marriage - just that a legal union, with equal rights and privileges be allowed. "If two people want to build a life together to the point of signing documents that require messy expensive divorce to undo, why not give everyone the same rights?”
The major attacks on same-sex marriage come from the religious right, who are opposed to homosexuality in any form. Naturally, they speak out against gay marriage as well.
One opposing view is that somehow same-sex marriage disrupts the "sanctity" of hetero marriage. The homosexual view; though it should be noted that no fault divorce laws really ended any "sanctity" in the contract some decades ago. Sanctity still remains in the religious aspect of some marriages, but that is separate from the civil marriage contract.
An interesting viewpoint from some gay couples is that they oppose gay marriage simply as a means to "legitimize" or sanctify a domestic partnership. “Historically, marriage has benefited male property owners. So, in a way, buying into marriage undermines the feminist sensibilities.” In their specific case however, they need none of the protections or extra privileges that a marriage contract offers. (For instance, their health care coverage accepts domestic partners).
Vermont has a "civil union" law, California now has one slated to take effect in 2005. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state may not exclude “qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage”. However, about half of the states have anti-gay marriage laws.
Meanwhile, the fundamentalist Christian right is active in opposing same-sex marriage, and makes up the core of the anti-gay movement.
[A] “family” merely means an interwoven social life, emotional commitment, and some level of financial interdependence.
It’s principle now well established around the country. Several cities have “domestic partnership” laws, which allow relationships that do not fit into the category of heterosexual marriage to be registered with the city and qualify for benefits that up till now have been reserved for straight married couples. San Francisco, Berkeley, Madison, and Los Angeles all have legislation, as does the politically correct Washington, D.C., suburb, Takoma Park. In these cities, a variety of interpersonal arrangements qualify for health insurance, bereavement leave, insurance, annuity and pension rights, housing rights (such as rent control apartments), adoption and inheritance rights. Eventually, according to gay lobby groups, the aim is to include federal income tax and veterans’ benefits as well. A recent case even involved the right to use a family member’s accumulated frequent-flier points. Gays are not the only beneficiaries; heterosexual “live-togethers” also qualify.
There’s an argument, of course, that the current legal advantages extended to married people unfairly discriminate against people who’ve shaped their lives in less conventional arrangements.
United Airlines offers benefits for an employee's domestic partner as part of the company’s commitment to valuing and supporting diversity among our employees and customers. There are other major companies offering similar benefits.
The same health, welfare, and travel benefits United currently provides to an employee's spouse are available as of May 1, 2000, to an employee's same-sex domestic partner. These benefits include medical and dental coverage, travel benefits, life and personal accident insurance, and a pre-retirement survivor pension benefit, (if elected by the employee). If an employee can legally marry his/her domestic partner under US law but chooses not to do so, then his or her domestic partner is eligible under this program for travel and bereavement leave benefits only. An employees and his or her domestic partner will need to meet certain requirements and provide legally acceptable evidence of their relationship in order to qualify for benefits.
While much of Western Europe is embracing homosexual unions or even marriage in some cases, the majority of Americans stolidly reject them. That became clear in [the last election], when all 11 states with ballot initiatives on same-sex marriages voted them down. Eight states voted to cut the rights of people – gay or straight – who are in civil unions and domestic partnerships. At risk, voters insist, are core American values: the role of family, the education of children, even the choice to live a sinful or moral life.
[C]onsider gay rights. Voters from Mississippi to Oregon approved resolutions opposed to same-sex marriages, and fewer than a dozen states provide health care benefits to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees. The federal government under George W. Bush certainly does not do so, and won’t. But at last count, 227 companies in the Fortune 500, including General Motors, Ford and Chevron Texaco, offer domestic partner benefits. A decade ago, only a handful did. More join them every year because firms need to compete for talent and want to be seen as treating everyone fairly.
I believe same-sex marriage should be decided by the people. And in 2004, the voters said no, not once, but in eleven of the states it was proposed. I don’t feel our country is ready to accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Perhaps, in time my view will change.
As in Europe, where legal gay unions took years to evolve, attitudes about same-sex marriage are shifting with a younger generation of Americans. A CBS/New York Times poll last year found that Americans under 30 favor gay marriage by 61 percent to 35 percent. People 65 and older opposed it by a 73 to 18 percent margin. In 20 years, that first group will be running the country. Maybe one of them will also be in the White House.
By Candy Stair
Circa December 2004
The movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be presumed unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate that it furthered a compelling state interest. In response to this decision the state constitution was amended to allow the legislature to preserve that restriction. A similar court decision in Alaska in 1998 led to an even stronger constitutional amendment, itself defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In further reaction to the Hawaii case, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996) provided that no state would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, and also defined marriage for federal-law purposes as opposite-sex. The majority of the states also passed their own "marriage protection acts."
In Vermont, after that state's Supreme Court held in 1999 that the state must extend to same-sex couples the same benefits that married couples receive, the legislature in 2000 created the status of "civil union" to fulfill that mandate.
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage violated the state constitution, and in February 2004 that court further held that a "civil union" law would not be sufficient, and on May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state in the United States where same-sex marriage per se is legal. A constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Judicial Court's decision has been given initial approval by the legislature. The soonest it could be voted on by the people is November 2006.
Currently, only one man and one woman can be joined in matrimony and have their marriages recognized by the state, except for residents of Massachusetts who successfully won a court battle for the right to marry. Same-sex couples were able to obtain marriage licenses in San Francisco, CA, and in various towns in New Mexico and New York for short intervals of time during 2004. However, none were able to register their marriages.
As of August, 2004, 37 states have enacted “Defense of Marriage Acts” (DOMAs) that ban same-sex marriage. Other states have similar legislation pending. 3 states (AK, NE, and NV) have amended their state constitutions to ban SSM. 4 states (MD, OR, WI, WY) have marriage laws that specifically prohibit SSM. 5 states (CT, NJ, NM, and RI) and DC have no explicit prohibition of SSM. And 1 state (MA) allows SSM, but only to residents of the state.
In the US, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) federally defines marriage as a union between one man and one women as husband and wife, and allows states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. DOMA was in response to state rulings in favor of same-sex marriages, such as in Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont. Worries that GLBT advocates would use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to require legal acts, records and proceedings executed in one state to be recognized in all other states, became realities. In turn, conservatives have been calling for a federal marriage amendment (H.J.RES.56) that would permanently define marriage in the US Constitution as a union only between a man and a woman, and would not allow states to rule otherwise.
Fifty years ago the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in the landmark case of Perez v. Lippold, striking down California’s ban on interracial marriage. A case that homosexual’s reference as their right to same-sex marriage.
In this proceeding in mandamus, petitioners seek to compel the county clerk of Los Angeles County to issue them a certificate of registry (Civ.Code, sec. 69a) and a **18 license to marry. (Civ.Code, sec. 69.) In the application for a license, petitioner Andrea Perez states that she is a white person and petitioner Sylvester Davis that he is a Negro. Respondent refuses to issue the certificate and license, invoking Civil Code section 69, which provides: '* * * no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race.'
Civil Code section 69 implements Civil Code section 60, which provides: 'All marriages of white persons with [N]egroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulatto[s] are illegal and void.' This section originally appeared in the Civil Code in 1872, but at that time it prohibited marriages only between white persons and Negroes or mulatto[s]. It *713 succeeded a statute prohibiting such marriages and authorizing the imposition of certain criminal penalties upon persons contracting or solemnizing them. (Stats.1850, Ch. 140, p. 424.) Since 1872, Civil Code section 60 has been twice amended, first to prohibit marriages between white persons and Mongolians (Stats.1901, p. 335) and subsequently to prohibit marriages between white persons and members of the Malay race. (Stats.1933, p. 561.)
Petitioners contend that the statutes in question are unconstitutional on the grounds that they prohibit the free exercise of their religion and deny to them the right to participate fully in the sacraments of that religion. They are members of the Roman Catholic Church. They maintain that since the church has no rule forbidding marriages between Negroes and Caucasians, they are entitled to receive the sacrament of matrimony.
The provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that Congress shall make no law 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' is encompassed in the concept of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment. State legislatures are therefore no more competent than Congress to enact such a law. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352. They may, however, regulate conduct for the protection of society, and insofar as their regulations are directed towards a proper end and are not unreasonably discriminatory, they may indirectly affect religious activity without infringing the constitutional guarantee. Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not. Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at pages 303, 304, 60 S.Ct. at page 903.
The regulation of marriage is considered a proper function of the state. It is well settled that a legislature may declare monogamy to be the 'law of social life under its dominion,' even though such a law might inhibit the free exercise of certain religious practices. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U.S. 145, 166, 25 L.Ed. 244; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 343, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637. If the miscegenation law under attack in the present proceeding is directed at a social evil and employs a reasonable means to prevent that evil, it is valid regardless of its incidental effect upon the conduct of particular religious groups. If, on the other hand, the law is discriminatory and irrational, *714 it unconstitutionally restricts not only religious liberty but the liberty to marry as well.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an area of personal liberty not yet wholly delimited. 'While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.' Italics added: Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 29 A.L.R. 1446. Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the **19 state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means.
No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably discriminatory or arbitrary. The state's interest in public education, for example, does not empower the Legislature to compel school children to receive instruction from public teachers only, for it would thereby take away the right of parents to 'direct the up-bringing and education of children under their control.' Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468. Again, the state's vital concern in the prevention of crime and the mental health of its citizens does not empower the Legislature to deprive 'individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring' by authorizing the sterilization of criminals upon an arbitrary basis of classification and without a fair hearing. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 536, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1111, 86 L.Ed. 1655.[FN1]
*715 The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, 'We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.' Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, 316 U.S. at page 541, 62 S.Ct. at page 1113. Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws. actual marriages.
Without the right to marry, same-sex couples have sought other ways to legalize their families, with varying success. Lambda Legal continues to support these efforts by drafting laws, expanding family recognition through the courts and empowering the LGBT community through education about their existing rights and options. Wills, health proxies, co-parent adoptions, co-leases, name changes: There are many legal ways that same-sex couples try to protect each other and their children. Still, desired protections may be unavailable, unsuccessful in court or not always respected by individuals, businesses or the government.
Homosexual couples point out that they are just as capable of raising children and having a healthy family as a heterosexual couple (adoptions for men, and adoption or artificial insemination for women).
Also, many point at that no fault divorce laws have reduced civil marriage to a contract, and all couples should have equal access to that contract.
The biggest argument in support is allowing same-sex couples the same legal protections, such as access to health care as a dependent, access to spouse in a medical emergency, inheritance, etc.
It should be noted that most supporters are not asking any particular religion to sanctify the marriage - just that a legal union, with equal rights and privileges be allowed. "If two people want to build a life together to the point of signing documents that require messy expensive divorce to undo, why not give everyone the same rights?”
The major attacks on same-sex marriage come from the religious right, who are opposed to homosexuality in any form. Naturally, they speak out against gay marriage as well.
One opposing view is that somehow same-sex marriage disrupts the "sanctity" of hetero marriage. The homosexual view; though it should be noted that no fault divorce laws really ended any "sanctity" in the contract some decades ago. Sanctity still remains in the religious aspect of some marriages, but that is separate from the civil marriage contract.
An interesting viewpoint from some gay couples is that they oppose gay marriage simply as a means to "legitimize" or sanctify a domestic partnership. “Historically, marriage has benefited male property owners. So, in a way, buying into marriage undermines the feminist sensibilities.” In their specific case however, they need none of the protections or extra privileges that a marriage contract offers. (For instance, their health care coverage accepts domestic partners).
Vermont has a "civil union" law, California now has one slated to take effect in 2005. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state may not exclude “qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage”. However, about half of the states have anti-gay marriage laws.
Meanwhile, the fundamentalist Christian right is active in opposing same-sex marriage, and makes up the core of the anti-gay movement.
[A] “family” merely means an interwoven social life, emotional commitment, and some level of financial interdependence.
It’s principle now well established around the country. Several cities have “domestic partnership” laws, which allow relationships that do not fit into the category of heterosexual marriage to be registered with the city and qualify for benefits that up till now have been reserved for straight married couples. San Francisco, Berkeley, Madison, and Los Angeles all have legislation, as does the politically correct Washington, D.C., suburb, Takoma Park. In these cities, a variety of interpersonal arrangements qualify for health insurance, bereavement leave, insurance, annuity and pension rights, housing rights (such as rent control apartments), adoption and inheritance rights. Eventually, according to gay lobby groups, the aim is to include federal income tax and veterans’ benefits as well. A recent case even involved the right to use a family member’s accumulated frequent-flier points. Gays are not the only beneficiaries; heterosexual “live-togethers” also qualify.
There’s an argument, of course, that the current legal advantages extended to married people unfairly discriminate against people who’ve shaped their lives in less conventional arrangements.
United Airlines offers benefits for an employee's domestic partner as part of the company’s commitment to valuing and supporting diversity among our employees and customers. There are other major companies offering similar benefits.
The same health, welfare, and travel benefits United currently provides to an employee's spouse are available as of May 1, 2000, to an employee's same-sex domestic partner. These benefits include medical and dental coverage, travel benefits, life and personal accident insurance, and a pre-retirement survivor pension benefit, (if elected by the employee). If an employee can legally marry his/her domestic partner under US law but chooses not to do so, then his or her domestic partner is eligible under this program for travel and bereavement leave benefits only. An employees and his or her domestic partner will need to meet certain requirements and provide legally acceptable evidence of their relationship in order to qualify for benefits.
While much of Western Europe is embracing homosexual unions or even marriage in some cases, the majority of Americans stolidly reject them. That became clear in [the last election], when all 11 states with ballot initiatives on same-sex marriages voted them down. Eight states voted to cut the rights of people – gay or straight – who are in civil unions and domestic partnerships. At risk, voters insist, are core American values: the role of family, the education of children, even the choice to live a sinful or moral life.
[C]onsider gay rights. Voters from Mississippi to Oregon approved resolutions opposed to same-sex marriages, and fewer than a dozen states provide health care benefits to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees. The federal government under George W. Bush certainly does not do so, and won’t. But at last count, 227 companies in the Fortune 500, including General Motors, Ford and Chevron Texaco, offer domestic partner benefits. A decade ago, only a handful did. More join them every year because firms need to compete for talent and want to be seen as treating everyone fairly.
I believe same-sex marriage should be decided by the people. And in 2004, the voters said no, not once, but in eleven of the states it was proposed. I don’t feel our country is ready to accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Perhaps, in time my view will change.
As in Europe, where legal gay unions took years to evolve, attitudes about same-sex marriage are shifting with a younger generation of Americans. A CBS/New York Times poll last year found that Americans under 30 favor gay marriage by 61 percent to 35 percent. People 65 and older opposed it by a 73 to 18 percent margin. In 20 years, that first group will be running the country. Maybe one of them will also be in the White House.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by umop ap!sdn » Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:59 pm
I've heard that the anti-SSM laws in Kansas have an unintended consequence: since the state doesn't offer or recognize a change of legal sex, an M2F transsexual is legally considered a man there and can enter into a lesbian marriage with a natal woman.
- umop ap!sdn
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 4595
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:24 pm
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:08 pm
umop ap!sdn wrote:I've heard that the anti-SSM laws in Kansas have an unintended consequence: since the state doesn't offer or recognize a change of legal sex, an M2F transsexual is legally considered a man there and can enter into a lesbian marriage with a natal woman.
Did you like my paper? Remember, there are global changes that have recently happened, too. I think in Spain.
Can you provide a link, umop? I'm always curious about domestic partnership or civil unions, since I don't ever plan on getting married. Well, if Dr Brian Cox gets a divorce... :P
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Same Sex Marriage
by ToSeek » Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:22 pm
Candy wrote:I wrote a paper on Same Sex Marriage awhile back for my Law class. I ordered a ton of books from Amazon. Am I pegged to receive Gay Marriage books for the rest of my life, now? :?We've noticed that customers who have purchased Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch also purchased books by Ian Ayres. For this reason, you might like to know that Ian Ayres's Straightforward : How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights is now available . You can order your copy at a savings of 34% by following the link below.
You just need to buy a whole bunch of books from Amazon on a different subject. Then you'll get nagged about that one. ;)
Everything I need to know I learned by Googling.
-
ToSeek - Government Shill
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 8:45 pm
Re: Same Sex Marriage
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:40 pm
ToSeek wrote:Candy wrote:I wrote a paper on Same Sex Marriage awhile back for my Law class. I ordered a ton of books from Amazon. Am I pegged to receive Gay Marriage books for the rest of my life, now? :?We've noticed that customers who have purchased Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America by Jonathan Rauch also purchased books by Ian Ayres. For this reason, you might like to know that Ian Ayres's Straightforward : How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights is now available . You can order your copy at a savings of 34% by following the link below.
You just need to buy a whole bunch of books from Amazon on a different subject. Then you'll get nagged about that one. ;)
You're so right. I did buy afterwards Brian Greene and Spacewriter's books. I guess the gay's out weigh the spa'ce. I'm trying to make it rhyme.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:48 pm
Menendez, left, places a ring on the finger of Baturin German during their wedding Monday. Monday, July 11th!
First gay couple marries in Spain
MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Two men -- a psychiatrist and a store window decorator -- have tied the knot in a Madrid suburb, the first gay couple to marry in Spain since the country's parliament passed a law allowing such unions last month.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by umop ap!sdn » Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:55 pm
Candy wrote:Did you like my paper?
Sure; it's well written and unbiased. There are a few isolated facts that maybe could be condensed into a paragraph or two but overall it's a good solid and informative essay. :)
Remember, there are global changes that have recently happened, too. I think in Spain.
Spain, Canada, and I'm not sure if there was another country or not.
Can you provide a link, umop?
Yes. :D
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/gross ... 20326.html
I just skimmed it, but this part describes what I was referring to:
Indeed, similar relationships have been the practical result in other states with a ruling like this one on the books--with male-to-female transsexuals carrying on lesbian relationships with women, under the sanctity of civil marriage.
- umop ap!sdn
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 4595
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:24 pm
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:14 pm
Interesting link, it seems that it's not just homosexual's that want a piece of the pie.
Here's what I want! I want civil unions or domestic partnership to have the same benefits as a married couple. I lived with a man for 7 years, until he got furloughed from the same company that I work for.
Not in this case, but it could've happened. What if he died during out shacking up? Everything that I and he possessed would go to his family (if it was documented in his name).
We both had the same medical and dental benefits, so we didn't care about that part.
What if he was in a horrible accident, would I be allowed to visit him in IC?
These are the little things that I am talking about.
David and I never got married, because we were both to young, and he eventually wanted a family. I didn't. I didn't want the emotional process of a divorce later on down the road. I didn't want to burden him when he was ready to go for the quest of children. I hope I'm making sense here, because sometimes I don't.
Here's what I want! I want civil unions or domestic partnership to have the same benefits as a married couple. I lived with a man for 7 years, until he got furloughed from the same company that I work for.
Not in this case, but it could've happened. What if he died during out shacking up? Everything that I and he possessed would go to his family (if it was documented in his name).
We both had the same medical and dental benefits, so we didn't care about that part.
What if he was in a horrible accident, would I be allowed to visit him in IC?
These are the little things that I am talking about.
David and I never got married, because we were both to young, and he eventually wanted a family. I didn't. I didn't want the emotional process of a divorce later on down the road. I didn't want to burden him when he was ready to go for the quest of children. I hope I'm making sense here, because sometimes I don't.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:40 pm
umop ap!sdn wrote:Candy wrote:I hope I'm making sense here
Absolutely. :)
David and I had an emotional bond, but not a family bond. In the 7 years we were together, he only met my grandmother. I never met anyone from his family. I want this kind of relationship in the future, but I fear it will be difficult due to our Country's renewed sense of a family structure. It really has changed since the 60's.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by gillianren » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:50 pm
my best friend's mother's a lesbian. my best friend has a lot more issues stemming from her biological parents' messy divorce than from her mother's current partner. (Julie and Rhio have been together as long as I've known Gwen. I don't particularly like Rhio, and I think Julie's pretty codependent, but they didn't get together until Gwen was, I believe, in high school, by which point her relationship issues were well established.)
honestly, I don't think it's anyone's business but Julie's and Rhio's and, tangentially, Gwen's, what Julie and Rhio do. however, if Rhio dies, Julie and Gwen become homeless (well, Gwen only for three months a year, because she's in grad school), because the land's in Rhio's name, and Rhio, like so many people, is intestate--and is actively afraid of making out a will.
if Rhio is, let's say, put in a coma, the person to make the decision is a third cousin. (they live in Hawaii; I think he lives in Kansas.) now, Julie is obviously the person who knows the most about Rhio's wishes on the subject, but she has no legal rights. frankly, she's lucky Gwen's her own next of kin; her parents would not make the decision she wanted. (Gwen has dodged the whole issue by writing out both a will and a living will due to her frustrations with all of her parents--her mom, her dad, and her two stepmothers.)
I don't see what business it is of anyone else's if Graham and I decide to get married or not. I don't see what business it is of anyone else's if Julie and Rhio decide to get married. in this, Candy, I disagree with you--remember, when that miscegenation ruling came down, large numbers of people definitely disagreed with it. as I see it, there option was not to marry a person of a different race, just as their option now is not to marry a person of the same sex. Graham and Julie and Rhio and I are all consenting adults. the Supreme Court ruled not long ago that what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is their own business. this, to me, means that all consenting adults should have the same rights.
okay, rant over. just so you know, Candy, you can tell Amazon not to base its recommendations for you off a certain book. I don't remember the exact way to do it, but there should be an option for "do not use this for recommendations," presumably so that you don't get a bunch of books you bought as gifts used to set your own preferences.
honestly, I don't think it's anyone's business but Julie's and Rhio's and, tangentially, Gwen's, what Julie and Rhio do. however, if Rhio dies, Julie and Gwen become homeless (well, Gwen only for three months a year, because she's in grad school), because the land's in Rhio's name, and Rhio, like so many people, is intestate--and is actively afraid of making out a will.
if Rhio is, let's say, put in a coma, the person to make the decision is a third cousin. (they live in Hawaii; I think he lives in Kansas.) now, Julie is obviously the person who knows the most about Rhio's wishes on the subject, but she has no legal rights. frankly, she's lucky Gwen's her own next of kin; her parents would not make the decision she wanted. (Gwen has dodged the whole issue by writing out both a will and a living will due to her frustrations with all of her parents--her mom, her dad, and her two stepmothers.)
I don't see what business it is of anyone else's if Graham and I decide to get married or not. I don't see what business it is of anyone else's if Julie and Rhio decide to get married. in this, Candy, I disagree with you--remember, when that miscegenation ruling came down, large numbers of people definitely disagreed with it. as I see it, there option was not to marry a person of a different race, just as their option now is not to marry a person of the same sex. Graham and Julie and Rhio and I are all consenting adults. the Supreme Court ruled not long ago that what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is their own business. this, to me, means that all consenting adults should have the same rights.
okay, rant over. just so you know, Candy, you can tell Amazon not to base its recommendations for you off a certain book. I don't remember the exact way to do it, but there should be an option for "do not use this for recommendations," presumably so that you don't get a bunch of books you bought as gifts used to set your own preferences.
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
--Maskerade
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
--Maskerade
-
gillianren - Government Shill
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:27 pm
- Location: Olympia, WA
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:59 pm
I don't see what business it is of anyone else's if Graham and I decide to get married or not. I don't see what business it is of anyone else's if Julie and Rhio decide to get married. in this, Candy, I disagree with you--remember, when that miscegenation ruling came down, large numbers of people definitely disagreed with it. as I see it, there option was not to marry a person of a different race, just as their option now is not to marry a person of the same sex. Graham and Julie and Rhio and I are all consenting adults.
I don't understand what you are disagreeing about with me. I just want equal rights for all, not just homosexual's.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by Candy » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:17 pm
Massachusetts Homosexual Couples Already Divorcing (5 days after Married)
FYI only. I can't find an unbiased link.
To me, marriage is just not the right avenue for most folks coming from a history of dysfunction. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am judging from the actions of the "notorious". Yes, I come from dysfunction, too.
The first homosexual divorce case in Suffolk County (includes Boston) was filed by a male couple who had “married” on May 22, five days after homosexual “marriage” was legalized. Since “homosexual marriage” was legalized, 4,266 licenses have been issued in Massachusetts for same-sex couples.
FYI only. I can't find an unbiased link.
To me, marriage is just not the right avenue for most folks coming from a history of dysfunction. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am judging from the actions of the "notorious". Yes, I come from dysfunction, too.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by gillianren » Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:44 pm
Candy wrote:I don't understand what you are disagreeing about with me. I just want equal rights for all, not just homosexual's.
I'm disagreeing that we should wait until society's ready for it. I think that as long as discrimination is official, people will feel justified in their own personal discrimination. as the laws change, attitudes change, and laws change as attitudes change. sometimes, the laws have to jumpstart the attitudes.
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
--Maskerade
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
--Maskerade
-
gillianren - Government Shill
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:27 pm
- Location: Olympia, WA
by frogesque » Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:17 pm
Candy wrote:Interesting link, it seems that it's not just homosexual's that want a piece of the pie.
Here's what I want! I want civil unions or domestic partnership to have the same benefits as a married couple. I lived with a man for 7 years, until he got furloughed from the same company that I work for.
Not in this case, but it could've happened. What if he died during out shacking up? Everything that I and he possessed would go to his family (if it was documented in his name).
snip ...
As a matter of interest, have you looked at Common Law Marriage I thought it was only recognised in Scotland but apparantly some States legally sanction it.
In Europe, this form of marriage survived only in Scotland, where it is called "marriage by habit and repute." In North America, it survives in about a dozen U.S. states.
-
frogesque - Government Shill
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:13 pm
by Candy » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:14 pm
gillianren wrote:Candy wrote:I don't understand what you are disagreeing about with me. I just want equal rights for all, not just homosexual's.
I'm disagreeing that we should wait until society's ready for it. I think that as long as discrimination is official, people will feel justified in their own personal discrimination. as the laws change, attitudes change, and laws change as attitudes change. sometimes, the laws have to jumpstart the attitudes.
I getcha, now. In this case, the people are deciding the law. The majority of people said no. When the majority of under 30 come into power, then I agree, let them make the law legalizing same sex marriage. It's really not to far off from now. I'm reminded of that quote, "Sometimes you have to sacrifice a few to save many" (or something like that). Why upset a whole bunch of people just to make a few people happy?
After reading about 10 homosexual books, I am under the impression that the main reason for same sex marriage is so the person(s) can feel normal. No offense, that is just not a good enough reason for me to want to pass a law.
There are already civil unions, domestic partnerships, and living wills that do just the same as "marriage". These are legal.
My personal issue with civil unions and domestic partnerships is that they cater to the same sex and not opposite sex relationships. Companies and the government discriminate against opposite sex relationships that just want to shack up for a few years. :P
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by Candy » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:15 pm
frogesque wrote:Candy wrote:Interesting link, it seems that it's not just homosexual's that want a piece of the pie.
Here's what I want! I want civil unions or domestic partnership to have the same benefits as a married couple. I lived with a man for 7 years, until he got furloughed from the same company that I work for.
Not in this case, but it could've happened. What if he died during out shacking up? Everything that I and he possessed would go to his family (if it was documented in his name).
snip ...
As a matter of interest, have you looked at Common Law Marriage I thought it was only recognised in Scotland but apparantly some States legally sanction it.In Europe, this form of marriage survived only in Scotland, where it is called "marriage by habit and repute." In North America, it survives in about a dozen U.S. states.
I don't like this, either. It's like marriage by default.
Can you tell, I just don't like that word "marriage"? To me, marriage is, literally, 'til death. :wink:
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by gillianren » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:54 pm
Candy wrote:Why upset a whole bunch of people just to make a few people happy?
because it's right. it's fair. all men are created equal, no matter with whom they go to bed.
After reading about 10 homosexual books, I am under the impression that the main reason for same sex marriage is so the person(s) can feel normal. No offense, that is just not a good enough reason for me to want to pass a law.
There are already civil unions, domestic partnerships, and living wills that do just the same as "marriage". These are legal.
not everywhere, there isn't, and there's a lot of other things to be considered. for example. Social Security benefits. my mom automatically got survivor benefits when my dad died; this was a large part of what we lived on when we were growing up. (as well, of course, as the survivor benefits paid to me and my sisters.)
and again, vast numbers of people, both married and unmarried, gay and straight, die intestate. my dad did, but since he and my mom were legally married, it didn't matter. Dad's property automatically went to my mother as a matter of course, because they were married. likewise when my friend Patrick's father died, his property automatically went to Patrick's mother. people don't make wills because they're scared of death. since marriage is, to me, a celebration of life, people aren't half as scared of it, if you look at numbers of marriages versus numbers of people without wills.
the main reason for same sex marriage is not so the participants can "feel" normal; it's because they are normal. they want to celebrate their love and, in the meantime, get a range of legal benefits that only marriage provides--and since those benefits are at all levels, a "domestic partnership" or whatever sop is being provided to them this week doesn't cover them. what I'm curious about is how the federal government will handle marriage benefits for those gay couples in Massachussets who got married.
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
--Maskerade
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
--Maskerade
-
gillianren - Government Shill
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:27 pm
- Location: Olympia, WA
by Candy » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:18 pm
gillianren wrote:the main reason for same sex marriage is not so the participants can "feel" normal; it's because they are normal. they want to celebrate their love and, in the meantime, get a range of legal benefits that only marriage provides--and since those benefits are at all levels, a "domestic partnership" or whatever sop is being provided to them this week doesn't cover them. what I'm curious about is how the federal government will handle marriage benefits for those gay couples in Massachussets who got married.
OT: I left all my property to the local humane society. :D
They may be normal, but homosexual's don't feel normal. Even at my company, they still hide their lifestyle. It's almost amusing to hear "Charlie" talk about his girlfriend, when it's so obvious he's gay.
Which reminds me, I haven't heard from my buddy who got transfered to Minneapolis/St Paul. He is a hoot to party with at the gay bars.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by gillianren » Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:12 pm
I don't feel normal, either. does that mean that insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover mental illness the same as they cover any other disease?
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
--Maskerade
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
--Maskerade
-
gillianren - Government Shill
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:27 pm
- Location: Olympia, WA
by Candy » Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:26 pm
gillianren wrote:I don't feel normal, either. does that mean that insurance companies shouldn't be forced to cover mental illness the same as they cover any other disease?
I have no idea. I never researched anything about mental illness and insurance companies.
At my company, we have the EAP (Employee Assistance Program) offered to the employees free and confidential. I gave the information to a co-worker, because I saw him slowly losing it at work. I advised my Manager that co-worker needed some serious help. The Manager chose to ignore the self-destructing behavior. Months went by, where I was terrified being alone with co-worker. His odd behavior just freaked me out. Finally, co-worker, just completely lost it one day (which I had to witness) was quickly escorted to a rehab clinic (which insurance most likely paid for minus copay). He was fired that same day, not for losing it, but for sleeping on the job. Now, he has no insurance to help him with his battle of mental illness and substance abuse. Last I heard, he moved back to Seattle working in landscaping.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
by Lance » Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:41 pm
You may want to see if there is some method by which you can anonymously report things like that to personnel. UA should be big enough to have something like that in place. Managers are often useless in dealing with people issues.
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
==========================================
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
==========================================
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
-
Lance - Administrator
- Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
- Posts: 91418
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
- Location: Oswego, IL
by Candy » Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:00 pm
Lance wrote:You may want to see if there is some method by which you can anonymously report things like that to personnel. UA should be big enough to have something like that in place. Managers are often useless in dealing with people issues.
If I see it ever happen again, I will look into something anonymous.
I follow those who I will someday lead. - Candy
- Candy
- Puppet Master
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 9:24 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
24 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Here There Be Llamas
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests