Google plans to pay gay employees more

reply to post by spacetowel


I don't think common law exists in the US.

I could be wrong, but from what I know that's something uniquely Canadian.

I'm sure some variants exist of the same practice however.

~Keeper

I think it's great that "domestic partners", or baically people have chosen to file for a piece of paper saying they are a couple, live together, and share bills, should be allowed to be compensated.

This simply allows all domestic partners (married hetero couples and homosexual couples) recieve the same amount of compensation if they choose to get insurance...

This isn't favoring people who are homosexual, it's balancing an injustice.

Originally posted by wrathchild
marriage is a scary and binding commitment to somebody...earning them them a financial respect of the government.

A scary commitment? Government respect?
That is not what I am looking for in a relationship.

it's not easy being married..a legal commitment to somebody

Yes,
I can see that a marrige based on legal commitment would be scary.

its easy having some chick living with you...maybe next month you could have some different woman living with you

That type of relationship sounds fairly complicated to me,
but I've not tried it. Maybe it's easier than it sounds.
Not sure what this has to do with paying gays more.

what organization is willing to deal with that??????

Hmm. You mean loosey goosey chicks moving in and out of your house?
I don't understand how this has anything to do with any organization
or paying gays more than heterosexuals.

that's why a marriage...gay or straight should be recognized...then a financial commitment by a corporation or the government can be given.

Once again i must respectfully disagree. I do not believe that any corperation
or government has any business "recognizing" a persons private affairs.

All people are naturally created equal, with natural
human rights and should be treated as such.
No government con-tracts should be needed in a persons private affairs.

Perhaps what is needed is
a fair tax system, or better yet no income taxes.

rather than acknowledge gays rights to marriage, I believe that the
government should remove thier nose from heterosexual marriages.

both parties would be accountable..

I do not see any proof that government involvment in a
persons private affairs is beneficial to anyone but the government.


Who is the government to say if gays or heterosexuals can or can not marry?
Why must people have government approval for personal matters???

Once again...
What is needed is
a fair tax system,
or better yet no income taxes.

Rather than acknowledge gays rights to marriage,
the government should remove its nose from heterosexual marriages.

reply to post by Thermo Klein


That's the main issue here.

It's really a money thing at the end of the day. Balancing the scales.

~Keeper

I am going to make a prediction here: someone will call me a "homophobe" before this thread is done. Ah, well, no matter. Sticks and stones, and all that.

The line in the article that started all this that caught my eye is this one:

Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent, the newspaper said, noting that the tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer.

That is wrong. Period. End of paragraph. No one can say anything to make it right.

That particular Federal law needs to be changed to include any adult domestic partnership. Regardless of my (or anyone else's) personal beliefs, it is flat out wrong to tax one person more than another on such a basis.

But, and here is where I expect dissension, it is also wrong to pay someone extra because of their personal lifestyle and/or beliefs. Sorry, but it is. It is just as wrong to pay a man more than a woman for doing the same job, or to pay a white man more than a black man for doing the same job. It is just as wrong to pay a heterosexual more than a homosexual.

The job should pay what it pays. Period.

What should happen here is for the Federal law to be either rescinded or overturned and the people employed to be paid based on their job performance. That is the proper way to do things. I understand that this action is intended to offset the actions by the Federal government, but in the end two wrongs do not make a right.

Some will no doubt say that what does it matter? It is an offset and therefore the heterosexuals are really not making less after taxes. That may be true, but the perception here is that one group is getting preferential treatment over another. I can see a story in the near future about this unfair Federal law is being overturned and gays are up in arms because they now are paid the same as other workers. It can and probably will lead to discrimination (in one direction or another), anger, loathing, and eventually violence toward gays.

I don't want that.

The end does not justify the means. those who try that route invariably end up causing much pain and anguish, good intentions notwithstanding.

TheRedneck

So, let's say I am an hetero happily married to wife and have 10 kids. Would google pay me more since I have 10 kids and 10 kids cost lost of money to feed and etc ?

[edit on 5-7-2010 by St-Patrick]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Without the fix Redneck, it was heteroes receiving preferencial treament, I don't see how fixing the gap is suddenly giving the gays more leverage.

And your obviously not a homophobe you have a valid point, the law should be changed. Google, in the meantime however is just doing what is right and trying to provide balance to a ridiculously corrupt system.

I may not like certain things they do, but this is a win in my book.

~Keeper

Originally posted by St-Patrick
So, let's say I am an hetero happily married to wife and have 10 kids. Would google pay me more since I have 10 kids and 10 kids cost lost of money to feed and etc ?

[edit on 5-7-2010 by St-Patrick]

That doesn't have anything to do with the article. STRAW MAN argument.

You chose to hav 10 kids, so therefore your responsible for the costs that come along with that choice, and your married, you receive benefits from the government for your children and a whole skew of other tax deductible things or tax exemptions.

Please use an argument that has something to do with the topic at hand.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


While I understand the premise, and agree that the ban on same-sex marriage is ludicrous. This is unfair the heterosexual who has a long standing relationship, but does not marry. He gets no tax benefit, and now his same-sex oriented peers will get more on their checks. Kind of kills the hetero's want for working hard. Why try?

EDIT to add:

ALL marriage should be taken out of government. Therefore bypassing any inequalities.

[edit on 7/6/2010 by Arcane Demesne]

reply to post by Arcane Demesne


Yeah, I agree, but the difference is the straight couple can DECIDE to marry if they wish.

We don't have that choice.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Arcane Demesne

 

Yeah, I agree, but the difference is the straight couple can DECIDE to marry if they wish.

We don't have that choice.

~Keeper

I understand. But why would you want to pay for a service that is inherently inadequate, outdated, and immoral in the first place. I've been engaged for 7 years. I just hate the idea of government telling me who I can/can't marry, and I don't think it's any of their business who I decide to have a 'spousal' relationship with.

In fact, the only reason I would get married are for tax benefits, and I still haven't brought myself to stoop to their level, at my economic peril.

IMHO, I'd MUCH rather get Govt out of marriage, rather than redefine marriage. Much easier, and less ways for them to hassle us.

reply to post by Arcane Demesne


Your preaching to the choir honey!

That's exactly how I wish things were, but sadly they are not. Therefore you have to put small checks and balances in place.

You can't just forgo every positive step forward because we don't like the way the system is set up.

In Canada, we have a beautiful thing called Common Law Marriage. Which means if you've lived with somebody for more than a year, in the same household and are in a relationship, then you automatically get the same benefits as Married Couples, without having the need to get married.

The US should implement something like that.

But like I said, this is only to compensate for the current injustices.

Doing something is better than doing nothing at all.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
In Canada, we have a beautiful thing called Common Law Marriage. Which means if you've lived with somebody for more than a year, in the same household and are in a relationship, then you automatically get the same benefits as Married Couples, without having the need to get married.

The US should implement something like that.

That works for any couple of any sexual orientation? bi sexual as well (for triple tax relief), and non monogamous relationships? if so, SIGN THE US UP FOR THAT!!!! I hate exclusion, but if they cling on to prejudice, then you need to hit them full force from an extreme angle, and eventually they'll settle on something less 'non normal'. Like any bargain, you have to shoot high to get in the middle.

reply to post by Arcane Demesne


Yup, any and all forms of relationships can be covered under this.

Common-law marriage, sometimes called de facto marriage,
informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute, is a form of interpersonal status which is legally recognized in some jurisdictions as a marriage even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the marriage registered in a civil registry.

A common-law marriage is legally binding in some common law jurisdictions but has no legal consequence in others. In some jurisdictions without true common-law marriages, for example, Hungary, the term "common-law marriage" is used as a synonym for non-marital relationships such as domestic partnership or reciprocal beneficiaries relationship.[1]

Source

Common-law marriage is often contrasted with the ceremonial marriage.




It's a great system.

~Keeper

[edit on 7/6/2010 by tothetenthpower]

good then I hope they finally get the proceedure they dream of.

Wonder if they will take your word for it or is there a homo chicken test!



Cow Clux Clan FTW!

[edit on 6-7-2010 by robbinsj]

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Believe me, I see your point. The law is unfair, and the Google 'fix' is intended to compensate. My only concern is that this is not the way it is supposed to work.

Will the gays now getting extra money from Google, should the law be repaired in the future, then accept a pay cut? I personally doubt it. So should the law now be fixed, it would be the gay employees receiving preferential treatment based on their sexuality. Also, what pressure is there now to change the law in the first place? Laws do not get changed unless someone is willing to fight them. The non-gays apparently do not care, since the law doesn't affect them, and now the gay community will have no reason to change it either, since it profits them nothing to have it changed. So the law remains, unchallenged and intact, despite it being inherently unfair.

No, this may be a temporary patch job for some Google employees, but it is far from a solution. The power to change laws is in the hands of the people, not the power to get around laws in the hands of the corporate employers.

If the tire is flat, you might get it to run a while longer with some duct tape, but that does not mean you fixed the tire. It means you'll be stranded on another highway soon.

TheRedneck