On Domestic partners must prove commitment, city council says
Posted on November 15 at 4:34 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
And to answer the, "why now? in a recession?"
The answer is because it is the right thing to do, regardless of the time, as as legal and public officials, I fully support the city council members in following that. It should have been done a long time ago, and people shouldn't have to "wait out" a recession for their basic rights. Other funds will have to suffer.
On Domestic partners must prove commitment, city council says
Posted on November 15 at 4:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Agreed, this is an obvious issue.
If you honestly think this is a SOLELY financial issue, then all city benefits for married spouses need to be cut NOW, if budget balancing is all you're after.
To think that marriage is a legal standing that deserves extra benefits over domestic partnerships, and also understand that marriage is not an equal-opportunity-legal standing, means that you are homophobic. That's it.
Posted on February 10 at 4:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Ezoner, I thought your argument was valid (though not what I agree with) until that last part. death, really?
Birth control is important. Increased access to birth control means less abortions, plain and simple, and isn't that what the catholic church would prefer anyway? Birth control should be a national priority.
Posted on February 10 at 12:41 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The opposition to this bill really surprises me. I don't know how I view this bill so differently from its proponents, but I think that the churches trying to restrict the birth control freedom of their employees is ridiculous. The bill is ensuring that all employees have the right to affordable birth control, if certain catholic women choose not to take advantage of that, good for them.
But I do NOT think that means that their employers should be allowed to restrict that right. "Obedient Catholic women" will not take advantage of the offer, they are not being made to use birth control, so there is no problem with the bill. Everyone is free to use or not use the birth control, it is the employers that are trying to restrict rights.
On Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Posted on February 4 at 6:53 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
totellthetruth (I could respond to others but will instead keep going with this conversation), you don't even pretend to reference secular logic. If your arguments have ONLY religious foundations, then you must know that you will never present a case to those with religious views different than yours. I've read enough bio/ethics writings by those who DO present good secular arguments against abortion to know that you can't possibly think the beginning of life is a matter of a "reality check", it is naive to think that your viewpoint is the obvious one.
As for the rest of the issue, having the freedom to make the choice to use birth control is a simple freedom (best summed up by a bumper sticker I once saw, "Don't like gay marriages? don't get one"). It is the duty of employers to allow their employees the option to have coverage for a medicine that is a wonderful, safe route to preventing abortions (yes, increasing access to contraceptives and sexual health education DRASTICALLY reduces numbers of abortions, which I believe everyone is in favor of). The pill has a lot of advantages beyond its contraceptive use, I'd say.
Overall, I'd just say I'm baffled that you think that restricting an employer's right to restrict employees' rights is unjust, that the restriction of rights is the moral one. Appalled, actually. You provide no arguments for your viewpoint being the moral one, only disgusting "analogies" using fear to "convince" others of their wrong viewpoints. I'm in disbelief.
On Contraception mandate outrages religious groups
Posted on February 3 at 3:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I'd prefer wording more like "Obama prohibits employers from restricting health care coverage" - putting the negative as though it's the employers that are being hurt, rather than employees being helped, is an obviously biased twist.
On Obama's associations keep character suspect
Posted on October 28 at 11:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
You don't have to completely agree with someone to be friendly, or even friends, with them.
enough said.
Obama may have even been close to these individuals, but let's be realistic; do none of you have close buddies with completely opposite views of your own? Having a president that only listens or talks to people with a mind like his doesn't sound like a good person to me.
a good politician, perhaps, but not a good person.
Even if he really respects these people or their views, do you expect any radical policies or beliefs of those sorts to seep into our country's leadership? I trust the system, and I know that old acquaintances don't generally determine one's future morals or actions.
On Does the economic climate locally and nationally add incentive for you to go to the polls on Nov. 4?
Posted on October 28 at 11:34 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It's funny how America, the world's shining example of democracy, has one of the lowest voter turnouts of the modernized world...
Number 139, globally, according to www.idea.int
actually, I don't find that so funny at all.
Page 1 of 1
On Domestic partners must prove commitment, city council says
Posted on November 16 at 6:10 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Okay, fine, alla y'all, I won't manage your benefits, just read what ReasonableIntellectual said, that person expressed it much better than I, apparently.