And in Montana...

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote><h2>Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights.</h2>

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - The US Constitution</blockquote>

<center><h1><a href=http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17248&c=101>Montana High Court Says University System Must Provide Gay Employees with Domestic Partner Benefits </a></h1></center>

<blockquote>...the Montana Supreme Court ruled today that the state must provide lesbian and gay employees of the University of Montana System with the option of purchasing health insurance and other employee benefits for their domestic partners.

The court, in a four-to-three decision, ruled that the University System's policy of excluding lesbian and gay employees from equal employment benefits <b>violates the state constitution's equal protection guarantees</b>.</blockquote>

The legal precedent now exists to enforce the US Constitution's equal protection clause on behalf of same-gender couples across the country and overturn both federal and state "Defense of Marriage" laws.

 

[Mr. P]

I don't think so. It's a very weak argument at best. We'll see.

 

[Said1]

<blockquote><h2>Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights.</h2>

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. - The US Constitution</blockquote>

<center><h1><a href=http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=17248&c=101>Montana High Court Says University System Must Provide Gay Employees with Domestic Partner Benefits </a></h1></center>

<blockquote>...the Montana Supreme Court ruled today that the state must provide lesbian and gay employees of the University of Montana System with the option of purchasing health insurance and other employee benefits for their domestic partners.

The court, in a four-to-three decision, ruled that the University System's policy of excluding lesbian and gay employees from equal employment benefits <b>violates the state constitution's equal protection guarantees</b>.</blockquote>

The legal precedent now exists to enforce the US Constitution's equal protection clause on behalf of same-gender couples across the country and overturn both federal and state "Defense of Marriage" laws.

Same sex benefits apply here in Canada. Some people are getting retroactive payments dating as far back as 1985!!

 

[Merlin1047]

The legal precedent now exists to enforce the US Constitution's equal protection clause on behalf of same-gender couples across the country and overturn both federal and state "Defense of Marriage" laws.

And nothing I can think of would give more impetus to an amendment to the US Constitution that specifies marriage is between a man and a woman.

I really don't have a problem with health care benefits to homosexual partners - so long as their rates reflect the higher risk of their lifestyle. I don't think that my rates should go up because more homosexuals are in the pool of insured people.

 

[Mr. P]

I don't think that my rates should go up because more homosexuals are in the pool of insured people.

But they will...So...

Let me tell ya where I think this will ultimately go, if it stands....That would be a withdrawal of all
health care benefits for any employee..If I were a business owner and I was "forced" by
the Government to provide more than I deem fit, that's just what I would do.
I'd pump some salaries to make up the difference. The problem is that wouldn't be an equal
replacement. So in the end, everyone loses.

I understand this is about a state school...The state, period, but it'll filter down to the private
sector and ultimately screw a lot of people.

 

[007]

I've lived in Montana before, twice. I always thought it was a land of rugged individuals. Cowboy's, miner's, and loggers. There's less than a million people in the whole state, and it's a big state.

But now I understand the old joke... "Montana, where men are men, and the sheep are nervous"...

 

[pegwinn]

But they will...So...

Let me tell ya where I think this will ultimately go, if it stands....That would be a withdrawal of all
health care benefits for any employee..If I were a business owner and I was "forced" by
the Government to provide more than I deem fit, that's just what I would do.
I'd pump some salaries to make up the difference. The problem is that wouldn't be an equal
replacement. So in the end, everyone loses.

I understand this is about a state school...The state, period, but it'll filter down to the private
sector and ultimately screw a lot of people.

Actually, my last employer was forced to change his policy. So what he did was ensure that new hires had no benifits at all. Once Attrition is complete he will be paying the same wages and incurring less expenses. Since no current employee loses anything, no one can complain.

 

[Mr. P]

Actually, my last employer was forced to change his policy. So what he did was ensure that new hires had no benifits at all. Once Attrition is complete he will be paying the same wages and incurring less expenses. Since no current employee loses anything, no one can complain.

Well, there ya go...Except the employer can complain. Here's why...he couldn't, for whatever reason offer benefits to new employees. So now he's not able to attract the best employees and that will affect his business.
So like I said, everyone loses, in the end...the employer the new and future employees.

 

[pegwinn]

Well, there ya go...Except the employer can complain. Here's why...he couldn't, for whatever reason offer benefits to new employees. So now he's not able to attract the best employees and that will affect his business.
So like I said, everyone loses, in the end...the employer the new and future employees.

Very true, but this guy was a scrooge. He was happy with the final outcome.

 

[Mr. P]

Very true, but this guy was a scrooge. He was happy with the final outcome.

That's to bad...But I've worked for a bunch of em, so I understand what you're talkin about. But the good news is...He'll most likely go out of business.