I agree, insurance companies should not have to pay benefits that their contracts require. They should only pay when they feel like it! Contract law be damned!!
i agree with bob. i would go further by questioning whether the recognition of “other states or countries” positions would apply to individuals who thwarted the ny statutes by going to canada to “legitimize” their union. also, should a school system psychologist be testing these waters at public expense.
i am not a proponent of the issues that the aclu and affiliates take up these days. they have become as much a tool of special interests as any partisan official.
I’m not familiar with these contracts. Where is the wording that extends the liablity for payments beyond the married couple and children? This appears to be a wedge issue to force gay marriage on NY. I’m not stating an opinion on gay marriage one way or another, but the issue is that the contract is for one thing and the ACLU is forcing it to cover more than intended. That happens all the time on all sorts of contracts.
Wow! That Joe Blow is one heck of a comedian. That biting satire of his is so funny that, not only did I forget to laugh at it, it caused me to forget how to laugh entirely….
Nobody, NY law says that the same-sex spouse is indeed a spouse. The insurance company has no legal standing to say that the other person is not a spouse. Coverage is not being extended beyond what was intended – coverage is covering exactly what was intended.
This is not a gay rights/marriage issue, the company is just refusing to pay for what they agreed to pay.
NY has already recognized the relationship between the two as marriage, the ACLU is not trying to make anybody do anything unreasonable (well, not in this particular case at least)
Fine, if that’s the law then they should have paid. I said I didn’t know the language. Courts do have a habit of stretching contracts way beyond the actual wording and intent to filfill some societal wish list. I thought this might be one of those cases. Society determines what the laws are based on their moral values. All laws place limitations on behaviors based on those values. It’s up to us to determine what those values include. Sometimes religious values end up being laws. Way of the world folks. We have to have some limits to behavior. What those limits are will always be too much for some and not enough for others.
Folks, to be honest this isn’t about the actual same sex marriage issue. When CA okayed same-sex marriages, our governor told state agencies they had to recognize those (and other jurisdictions’)same sex unions. there is debate here in NY that he does not have the authority to make that ruling, it would have to go through legilative channels. this is the nyclu trying to get it judicially precedented(?) via a test case.
Wow! KLS do you really mean what you said??? Everyone gets to decide their own “morals” aka “I can do what ever I want!”
What if my “morals” say I can take your car, money, wife, whatever I want, and you have nothing to say about it, BECAUSE THOSE ARE MY MORALS???
No need to get all CAPS. I’m very chill and don’t mind if you agree or disagree. I welcome discussion.
Yes, everyone can decide on their own moral code. I do mean what I say about that.
If you want to try and take my car and money, I can’t affect your decision, but I can protect my belongings. (You can’t have my wife because I’m married to a man. LOL But I realize you had no way of knowing that. -grins-)
You may not think stealing is immoral and go try to steal. You certainly wouldn’t be the first person with that attitude. But depending on who you’re trying to rip off, you’ll find out soon enough if that “moral” decision was a good one.
I believe things have a way of working themselves out.
People who don’t think violence is wrong are going to get away with beating on some people and they won’t get away with beating on others. We already have laws in place that say violence is wrong and it doesn’t stop certain people from being violent. It only punishes them after the fact.
My point is, people are going to behave whatever way they please and face the consequences as they happen. So in a way, we already choose our own morals.
In the situation of gay and lesbian adult couples being treated equally the same as adult heterosexual couples, can you tell me, other than this “moral” argument, why they don’t deserve equal treatment?
Is a homosexual person criminal or a lesser person just for being homosexual?
What proof do heterosexual people have that they are above/better/more deserving of treatment than homosexual people?
I would dearly love an answer to that question, one that isn’t based in religious trappings. (Because not everyone subscribes to a religion, therefore not everyone should be painted with that brush).
Consider the concept that religion is actually an embodiment of the human nature, in a more perfect state. Ignore the concept that “religion” was placed on the humans by an outside source, but rather developed by humans themselves as a means of adding order to their social structure.
Then consider that the basis of religion was the encoding of the “best of breed” rules (morals, if you would) of how the human society had to control itself.
If you can accept the above premises, then you should be able to accept that what is being presented today as “religious morals” is really a manifestation of the Better Side of Humanity.
Now, to your question of why heterosexual activity and relationships are “better”… The propagation and survival of the species has always been the most basic need and rule of order for humanity. Short term gratification and aberrations are distant seconds.
Actions and life choices that do not promote the basic survival of the species are not primarily good for humanity. It is easy to make Religion the target, paper dragon, scapegoat, etc. Basic humanity defines the real primacy.
What if your religion and my religion differ on what is moral? This is why we have laws, that are certainly influenced by religion. I would argue that while these laws are rooted in religion, generally they must have some global (or in our case national) appeal and make sense independent of the religious background. Regardless of you being religious it is pretty evident that to physically harm someone is wrong. To steal is harm. We have a basic economic system setup where you can work for your possessions and obtain them legally.
Remember that democracy does not stop at majority rule. The second half of that idea is with minority rights. I think that we sometimes forget about that.
Also, would you make the argument that unless your decision is for the propagation of the species it is inherently wrong? What do you think about birth control, or surgery to prevent children (I don’t mean abortion either, but having tubes tied etc)? How is that any different from a same sex couple who are unable to bear a child together?
Marriage of heterosexual couples is primarily beneficial to Society. That is the specific response to KLS as to why heterosexual marriages should receive a higher status and more benefit in our society.
This blog won’t support the full discussion of Good vs Evil…
How is same sex marriage not beneficial to society? These parents can adopt the orphaned children from the “beneficial” hetersexual couples that don’t receive love, are abused, etc. While the couple cannot create a life, they can certainly guide one and raise a child in a loving home. That in itself is certainly primarily benefical to society.
Oh if only I could better search past articles on MSN.
One article I read recently talked about homosexuality in nature. They placed a number of sheep in a pen with three sheep, a male, a female in heat and a female not in heat, all contained so only the backside was available and they couldn’t resist the tested sheep’s advances, and found that a percentage of the tested sheep went for the male every time. They were gay sheep. In nature. With no societal interference. A willing female sheep was ready and available. Gay sheep.
Another study looked at the genetics involved in human homosexuality and noted that families with gay men tended to have women that with more fecundity. Yup, having a gay male cousin, if you’re a woman, means you’re a better breeder. So homosexuality is good for propogation (at least male homosexuality is) because the genes involved make the women bear more and healthier children. The study did not look at the effects of female homosexuality.
I really wish I could find these articles.
And if homosexuals want to get married they have every right to be as miserable as their heterosexual counterparts. Why not share the “wealth”.
Using the logic of ‘heterosexual is better because of the ability to reproduce’, then I have another question.
What about a heterosexual person who is infertile for whatever reason. As we know, sometimes men and women are born with problems that affect their reproductive systems.
Since homosexual couples should be denied equal treatment because they can’t reproduce, then shall we also deny sterile heterosexual couples the right to marry and receive spousal insurance benefits because they also cannot reproduce?
For that matter, shall we deny equal treatment to any person who is physically or mentally not-as-good-as-average because they have traits that make them not-as-good for society as a whole?
I realize insurance benefits are often limited to those with pre-existing conditions and for obvious reasons, that makes sense. But we’re talking about denying benefits based on something that doesn’t have much to do with the actual risk… That’s disturbing.
KLS’s question was “Why should Heterosexual Relationships/Marriages be given a higher priority?”
It was not “Why should ‘this’ relationship get higher priority than ‘that’ relationship.
It was a global question and I gave a global answer. Each of the follow-up questions has tried to present narrow circumstances instead of the broad condition.
Get out of your own pocket and realize Society is for the Greater Good. (pass on the minority condition – that is not the human nature of greater social good, that is a function of advanced microanalysis)
Each of the counter arguments has been to justify secondary conditions, not to analyze why there is a Primary or Preferred position.
In all fairness, I always thought there were gay sheep. I mean, look at the way they run. Also poodles, you know there’s a lot of gay poodles out there. Any kind of dog with the word “toy” in front of their name–You think Paris Hilton’s chihuahua is straight? I’m sure there are a lot of gay peacocks out there, what with all their colors and fancy plumage.
My point? Who cares. God (or whatever you believe in) made everything. To suggest that something that occurs naturally is wrong is the same as saying that God makes mistakes.
trying to regulate what two grown adults do in the privacy of their own home.
Billions are being spent trying to stop it because too many people have nothing better to do. don’t like gays? Don’t marry one.
Not my thing, personally, but I have no right to tell anyone else who to marry, or not, as the case may be.
Stop wasting the taxpayer dollars and let them have insurance, tax breaks, survivor benefits, and family rights as it pertains to medical decisions. THAT doesn’t cost me (taxpayer) a dime. And, IMHO, if they are together they should have those rights. I did have a gay neighbor. They were together 38 years. When one got Alzheimer’s, the Partner took care of him. Didn’t see anyone else stepping up. But when he was on his deathbed? The Partner was excluded- not legal family. He was on life support for WAY too long because his Partner couldn’t sign a piece of paper. That’s wrong. No survivor benefits- the Partner lost the house. That’s wrong.
Everytime some bible thumper tries to tell Bob that he can’t marry Mike, a few hundred thousand more dollars come out of OUR pockets. Either learn to live with it or pay the court costs YOURSELVES.
Stupid.
And in those states that recognize gay marriage? Insurance should be forced to recognize it as well.
I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding your point about passing over on the minority conditions. Because there are fewer of them, they should not be considered is what I think I’m reading, but I am not certain that was your point.
I agree with you about the greater good, but society happens to include both the majority and the minority groups. We can’t exclude the smaller groups and still be ‘society’. Or perhaps we can, but we shouldn’t expect the minority groups to take that kind of garbage in silence.
I’m still trying to see how/why the greater good of a minority group is somehow worth less than that of a bigger group. Sorry if I’m slow to understanding (agreeing and understanding not being the same thing) but my curiosity is a blessing and a curse.
If enough “minority groups” suffer from unfair treatment, won’t that eventually have a negative impact on the greater good of all society?
Like if benefits for this couple are limited due to a particular technicality, who’s next on the list? Perhaps one of the lucky majority people will suddenly find themselves on the receiving end?
Personally I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t think the government should formally recognize any union on any basis other than contractually. There is nothing a marriage license covers that can’t be taken care of in a will, power of attorney and maybe a couple other documents. So get rid of government sanctioned marriage altogether since we can’t agree on it. Get rid of government benefits for marriage. Get rid of the whole thing.
If you want to get married you can go to your local holy person and get married – the only difference would be the government wouldn’t care.
We can address partner issues by writing partners into or out of policies the same that we do now. The difference would be that, since spouses would no longer legally exist, spouses would not automatically get coverage.
This solves all sorts of problems, but will never be adopted.
Is there proof that heterosexual couples offer a greater benefit to society than homosexual couples? The only article I remember reading on it, granted this has been many months ago, just talked about the benefit to society of couples as a group and did not differentiate between any type of couple – homosexual/hetersexual, married/dating, etc. I wonder if anyone has seriously studied whether coupledom is truly a benefit to society at all, let alone if any particular type of couple shows greater benefit than another type.
I’d like to have half the money the ACLU has forced innocent Americans to pay to defend themselves against pure lunacy.
I agree, insurance companies should not have to pay benefits that their contracts require. They should only pay when they feel like it! Contract law be damned!!
i agree with bob. i would go further by questioning whether the recognition of “other states or countries” positions would apply to individuals who thwarted the ny statutes by going to canada to “legitimize” their union. also, should a school system psychologist be testing these waters at public expense.
i am not a proponent of the issues that the aclu and affiliates take up these days. they have become as much a tool of special interests as any partisan official.
I’m not familiar with these contracts. Where is the wording that extends the liablity for payments beyond the married couple and children? This appears to be a wedge issue to force gay marriage on NY. I’m not stating an opinion on gay marriage one way or another, but the issue is that the contract is for one thing and the ACLU is forcing it to cover more than intended. That happens all the time on all sorts of contracts.
Wow! That Joe Blow is one heck of a comedian. That biting satire of his is so funny that, not only did I forget to laugh at it, it caused me to forget how to laugh entirely….
Fair is Fair, I am surprised at BC/BS in New York. I thought New Yorkers we smarter than that.
Nobody, NY law says that the same-sex spouse is indeed a spouse. The insurance company has no legal standing to say that the other person is not a spouse. Coverage is not being extended beyond what was intended – coverage is covering exactly what was intended.
This is not a gay rights/marriage issue, the company is just refusing to pay for what they agreed to pay.
NY has already recognized the relationship between the two as marriage, the ACLU is not trying to make anybody do anything unreasonable (well, not in this particular case at least)
You have a very fragile sense of humor.
Enjoy life a little more :)
…isn’t this the goal of “same-sex marriage”? Lookout, it’s coming soon to a town near you.
Both Joe and Nobody have compelling arguements. I guess this is just what happens when we throw our morals out the window!-Love Mom
What if the insurance contract defines spouse as a person to whom the insured is married and is of the opposite sex?
Then they would be justified in rejecting coverage. Of course the next argument would be that it is discriminatory.
What if my morals aren’t the same as your morals 2ndamendmentmomma? What gives you the authority to decide what morals I’m supposed to have?
I haven’t heard a convincing argument yet that makes me think twice about equality for gay or lesbian couples.
But I’m very curious to know if anyone has something other than the “morality” leg upon which to stand.
BC/BS agreed to pay for the spouse. NY recognizes the marriage. Pay claims as per the contract. Simple enough.
I completely agree with KLS.
They should pay.
Fine, if that’s the law then they should have paid. I said I didn’t know the language. Courts do have a habit of stretching contracts way beyond the actual wording and intent to filfill some societal wish list. I thought this might be one of those cases. Society determines what the laws are based on their moral values. All laws place limitations on behaviors based on those values. It’s up to us to determine what those values include. Sometimes religious values end up being laws. Way of the world folks. We have to have some limits to behavior. What those limits are will always be too much for some and not enough for others.
Folks, to be honest this isn’t about the actual same sex marriage issue. When CA okayed same-sex marriages, our governor told state agencies they had to recognize those (and other jurisdictions’)same sex unions. there is debate here in NY that he does not have the authority to make that ruling, it would have to go through legilative channels. this is the nyclu trying to get it judicially precedented(?) via a test case.
Wow! KLS do you really mean what you said??? Everyone gets to decide their own “morals” aka “I can do what ever I want!”
What if my “morals” say I can take your car, money, wife, whatever I want, and you have nothing to say about it, BECAUSE THOSE ARE MY MORALS???
No need to get all CAPS. I’m very chill and don’t mind if you agree or disagree. I welcome discussion.
Yes, everyone can decide on their own moral code. I do mean what I say about that.
If you want to try and take my car and money, I can’t affect your decision, but I can protect my belongings. (You can’t have my wife because I’m married to a man. LOL But I realize you had no way of knowing that. -grins-)
You may not think stealing is immoral and go try to steal. You certainly wouldn’t be the first person with that attitude. But depending on who you’re trying to rip off, you’ll find out soon enough if that “moral” decision was a good one.
I believe things have a way of working themselves out.
People who don’t think violence is wrong are going to get away with beating on some people and they won’t get away with beating on others. We already have laws in place that say violence is wrong and it doesn’t stop certain people from being violent. It only punishes them after the fact.
My point is, people are going to behave whatever way they please and face the consequences as they happen. So in a way, we already choose our own morals.
In the situation of gay and lesbian adult couples being treated equally the same as adult heterosexual couples, can you tell me, other than this “moral” argument, why they don’t deserve equal treatment?
Is a homosexual person criminal or a lesser person just for being homosexual?
What proof do heterosexual people have that they are above/better/more deserving of treatment than homosexual people?
I would dearly love an answer to that question, one that isn’t based in religious trappings. (Because not everyone subscribes to a religion, therefore not everyone should be painted with that brush).
Consider the concept that religion is actually an embodiment of the human nature, in a more perfect state. Ignore the concept that “religion” was placed on the humans by an outside source, but rather developed by humans themselves as a means of adding order to their social structure.
Then consider that the basis of religion was the encoding of the “best of breed” rules (morals, if you would) of how the human society had to control itself.
If you can accept the above premises, then you should be able to accept that what is being presented today as “religious morals” is really a manifestation of the Better Side of Humanity.
Now, to your question of why heterosexual activity and relationships are “better”… The propagation and survival of the species has always been the most basic need and rule of order for humanity. Short term gratification and aberrations are distant seconds.
Actions and life choices that do not promote the basic survival of the species are not primarily good for humanity. It is easy to make Religion the target, paper dragon, scapegoat, etc. Basic humanity defines the real primacy.
What if your religion and my religion differ on what is moral? This is why we have laws, that are certainly influenced by religion. I would argue that while these laws are rooted in religion, generally they must have some global (or in our case national) appeal and make sense independent of the religious background. Regardless of you being religious it is pretty evident that to physically harm someone is wrong. To steal is harm. We have a basic economic system setup where you can work for your possessions and obtain them legally.
Remember that democracy does not stop at majority rule. The second half of that idea is with minority rights. I think that we sometimes forget about that.
Also, would you make the argument that unless your decision is for the propagation of the species it is inherently wrong? What do you think about birth control, or surgery to prevent children (I don’t mean abortion either, but having tubes tied etc)? How is that any different from a same sex couple who are unable to bear a child together?
Dustin
Marriage of heterosexual couples is primarily beneficial to Society. That is the specific response to KLS as to why heterosexual marriages should receive a higher status and more benefit in our society.
This blog won’t support the full discussion of Good vs Evil…
How is same sex marriage not beneficial to society? These parents can adopt the orphaned children from the “beneficial” hetersexual couples that don’t receive love, are abused, etc. While the couple cannot create a life, they can certainly guide one and raise a child in a loving home. That in itself is certainly primarily benefical to society.
Oh if only I could better search past articles on MSN.
One article I read recently talked about homosexuality in nature. They placed a number of sheep in a pen with three sheep, a male, a female in heat and a female not in heat, all contained so only the backside was available and they couldn’t resist the tested sheep’s advances, and found that a percentage of the tested sheep went for the male every time. They were gay sheep. In nature. With no societal interference. A willing female sheep was ready and available. Gay sheep.
Another study looked at the genetics involved in human homosexuality and noted that families with gay men tended to have women that with more fecundity. Yup, having a gay male cousin, if you’re a woman, means you’re a better breeder. So homosexuality is good for propogation (at least male homosexuality is) because the genes involved make the women bear more and healthier children. The study did not look at the effects of female homosexuality.
I really wish I could find these articles.
And if homosexuals want to get married they have every right to be as miserable as their heterosexual counterparts. Why not share the “wealth”.
Using the logic of ‘heterosexual is better because of the ability to reproduce’, then I have another question.
What about a heterosexual person who is infertile for whatever reason. As we know, sometimes men and women are born with problems that affect their reproductive systems.
Since homosexual couples should be denied equal treatment because they can’t reproduce, then shall we also deny sterile heterosexual couples the right to marry and receive spousal insurance benefits because they also cannot reproduce?
For that matter, shall we deny equal treatment to any person who is physically or mentally not-as-good-as-average because they have traits that make them not-as-good for society as a whole?
I realize insurance benefits are often limited to those with pre-existing conditions and for obvious reasons, that makes sense. But we’re talking about denying benefits based on something that doesn’t have much to do with the actual risk… That’s disturbing.
KLS’s question was “Why should Heterosexual Relationships/Marriages be given a higher priority?”
It was not “Why should ‘this’ relationship get higher priority than ‘that’ relationship.
It was a global question and I gave a global answer. Each of the follow-up questions has tried to present narrow circumstances instead of the broad condition.
Get out of your own pocket and realize Society is for the Greater Good. (pass on the minority condition – that is not the human nature of greater social good, that is a function of advanced microanalysis)
Each of the counter arguments has been to justify secondary conditions, not to analyze why there is a Primary or Preferred position.
In all fairness, I always thought there were gay sheep. I mean, look at the way they run. Also poodles, you know there’s a lot of gay poodles out there. Any kind of dog with the word “toy” in front of their name–You think Paris Hilton’s chihuahua is straight? I’m sure there are a lot of gay peacocks out there, what with all their colors and fancy plumage.
My point? Who cares. God (or whatever you believe in) made everything. To suggest that something that occurs naturally is wrong is the same as saying that God makes mistakes.
trying to regulate what two grown adults do in the privacy of their own home.
Billions are being spent trying to stop it because too many people have nothing better to do. don’t like gays? Don’t marry one.
Not my thing, personally, but I have no right to tell anyone else who to marry, or not, as the case may be.
Stop wasting the taxpayer dollars and let them have insurance, tax breaks, survivor benefits, and family rights as it pertains to medical decisions. THAT doesn’t cost me (taxpayer) a dime. And, IMHO, if they are together they should have those rights. I did have a gay neighbor. They were together 38 years. When one got Alzheimer’s, the Partner took care of him. Didn’t see anyone else stepping up. But when he was on his deathbed? The Partner was excluded- not legal family. He was on life support for WAY too long because his Partner couldn’t sign a piece of paper. That’s wrong. No survivor benefits- the Partner lost the house. That’s wrong.
Everytime some bible thumper tries to tell Bob that he can’t marry Mike, a few hundred thousand more dollars come out of OUR pockets. Either learn to live with it or pay the court costs YOURSELVES.
Stupid.
And in those states that recognize gay marriage? Insurance should be forced to recognize it as well.
I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding your point about passing over on the minority conditions. Because there are fewer of them, they should not be considered is what I think I’m reading, but I am not certain that was your point.
I agree with you about the greater good, but society happens to include both the majority and the minority groups. We can’t exclude the smaller groups and still be ‘society’. Or perhaps we can, but we shouldn’t expect the minority groups to take that kind of garbage in silence.
I’m still trying to see how/why the greater good of a minority group is somehow worth less than that of a bigger group. Sorry if I’m slow to understanding (agreeing and understanding not being the same thing) but my curiosity is a blessing and a curse.
If enough “minority groups” suffer from unfair treatment, won’t that eventually have a negative impact on the greater good of all society?
Like if benefits for this couple are limited due to a particular technicality, who’s next on the list? Perhaps one of the lucky majority people will suddenly find themselves on the receiving end?
Personally I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t think the government should formally recognize any union on any basis other than contractually. There is nothing a marriage license covers that can’t be taken care of in a will, power of attorney and maybe a couple other documents. So get rid of government sanctioned marriage altogether since we can’t agree on it. Get rid of government benefits for marriage. Get rid of the whole thing.
If you want to get married you can go to your local holy person and get married – the only difference would be the government wouldn’t care.
We can address partner issues by writing partners into or out of policies the same that we do now. The difference would be that, since spouses would no longer legally exist, spouses would not automatically get coverage.
This solves all sorts of problems, but will never be adopted.
Is there proof that heterosexual couples offer a greater benefit to society than homosexual couples? The only article I remember reading on it, granted this has been many months ago, just talked about the benefit to society of couples as a group and did not differentiate between any type of couple – homosexual/hetersexual, married/dating, etc. I wonder if anyone has seriously studied whether coupledom is truly a benefit to society at all, let alone if any particular type of couple shows greater benefit than another type.