Michigan: Republican-controlled state House Votes to Ban Domestic Partnership Benefits

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

When gays start reproducing among themselves then I might start buying into the bs that they are an actual couple. Until that happens though they can keep barking up a tree.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have read the bill 3 times now and no where am seeing gays singled out in the bill. You should look around at some of my posts. I have written that gays are no less human than straight people are. And I still do believe that to be true. But in this particular piece of legislation it does not violate their civil rights any more than it violates some one who chooses not to marry.

Oh come on. This law was designed to deny the civil rights of gay couples who have already been outlawed from marrying in Michigan. Pretending this wasn't targeted at gay couples is beyond absurd. Context is everything.

[kytwell 179]

Oh come on. This law was designed to deny the civil rights of gay couples who have already been outlawed from marrying in Michigan. Pretending this wasn't targeted at gay couples is beyond absurd. Context is everything.

We'll have to agree, to disagree. I'd tend to think that there will be just as many straight couples as gay couples affected by this particular bill. The difference is that the straight couples don't have a victim card to pull out.

Thank you Lord Infamous for showing us what the law clearly states in Michigan as voted on by the citizens and upheld by the courts.

[slim 1,533]

When gays start reproducing among themselves then I might start buying into the bs that they are an actual couple. Until that happens though they can keep barking up a tree.

My wife and I aren't reproducing. Are we not a couple?

Oh come on. This law was designed to deny the civil rights of gay couples who have already been outlawed from marrying in Michigan. Pretending this wasn't targeted at gay couples is beyond absurd. Context is everything.

Context has nothing to do with the law. What the law says is what goes.

For example, check out the Gun Control Act of 1968. It was clearly put in place to limit the firepower of colored folks yet it's hampered all of us from private ownership without infringement.

[Ban Hammer 13,692]

My wife and I aren't reproducing. Are we not a couple?

you need to practice more

[slim 1,533]

you need to practice more

Why anyone would reproduce is beyond me.

Kids are annoying. They're expensive. They serve no purpose in the modern world.

[Danno 1,228]

Civil Rights aren't limited to race. Do you not think that gay people have civil rights?

And not only gay people, Bi-sexuals too, how dare any state tell Bi-sexual people they must choose either a man or woman... but not both.

It's rather cruel to deny these folks the full expression of their orientation..... by not covering both partners of the employee.

Think about that, the State making this Bi-sexual employee choose which one will get coverage.

[The_Dude 1,142]

And not only gay people, Bi-sexuals too, how dare any state tell Bi-sexual people they must choose either a man or woman... but not both.

It's rather cruel to deny these folks the full expression of their orientation..... by not covering both partners of the employee.

Think about that, the State making this Bi-sexual employee choose which one will get coverage.

What an ignorant assumption to make Danno. You assume that Bi-sexuals are by default always in an open relationship and that they expect to be covered by their partner's benefits. You also assume that gay people want to have sex with you. Sorry, to be the one to inform you of this Danno, but gay people have morals and standards. Who are you to determine what civil rights are applicable to which citizens of this country? To actually address your insipid scenario, I imagine the state would handle a non-monogomous bi-sexual arrangement the same as if a man with a wife and a girlfriend wanted to insure both, and that is to make you pay for the 2nd beneficiary yourself.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

And not only gay people, Bi-sexuals too, how dare any state tell Bi-sexual people they must choose either a man or woman... but not both.

It's rather cruel to deny these folks the full expression of their orientation..... by not covering both partners of the employee.

Think about that, the State making this Bi-sexual employee choose which one will get coverage.

[Craneman 2]

And not only gay people, Bi-sexuals too, how dare any state tell Bi-sexual people they must choose either a man or woman... but not both.

It's rather cruel to deny these folks the full expression of their orientation..... by not covering both partners of the employee.

Think about that, the State making this Bi-sexual employee choose which one will get coverage.

Does this mean that the taxpayers should have to cover all three of my wives, one is white, one is Latino"Brasilian" and the other is black, although the Braislian considers herself black.

Which one or ones would they deny ?

Does that make me trisexual ?

[slim 1,533]

Does this mean that the taxpayers should have to cover all three of my wives, one is white, one is Latino"Brasilian" and the other is black, although the Braislian considers herself black.

Which one or ones would they deny ?

Does that make me trisexual ?

As a very real issue in Michigan, what is their policy on multiple spouses?

Michigan has a lot of "religious folks" who have more than one wife.