You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
I'm in love with a tree I'm in love with a tree--I'm going to run outside and give it a great BIG HUG!! Oh no if I try to MARRY the tree will Minnesota find that disgusting and perverted and raise a constitutional amendment against me and my tree ever being together?!? What to do what to do about these silly politics that are based on the anal cheapness of the state?
This is not apples to apples. I think it is great that a PRIVATE business will extend employee health coverage to a 'domestic partner'. It is another thing when the GOVERNMENT becomes invlolved.
But it is--what it really comes to is first come first served (not a very good way to describe it -- I know) with very little outside influence besides, swindling public monies, and other forms of fraud. For example, the welfare queen got 10 years where commercial sports team owners got zero years--both are swindling tax monies but what the welfare queen didn't realize was she just had to get in FIRST BEFORE anyone else got to it. Then people wouldn't have run her up the river on a rail. The state CANNOT claim 'deserving' that heterosexuals are more 'deserving' of tax money than homosexuals. That is what this amendment is claiming and even if it passes it is so illegal that all our tax money will get 'eaten' just by the court claims.
jmusielewicz, Sure, just as soon as that tree can consent. Which of course it can't.
cg49423, I think you're missing the point. Obviously the government IS involved here. For their employees, the state sets parameters for them. Companies set their benefits and must be competitive. A company based in a state that legally mandates inequality is less competitive for workers than a state that does not. A company that tries to provide equal benefits for all its workers must actually overcompensate when the government does not treat them equally. And then you have some states like Michigan that used their ban as an excuse to tax organizations EXTRA for such benefits on top of the benefits not receiving the same tax treatment. This is heavy government regulations that make firms in Minnesota less competitive should this amendment pass. That's why so many of these companies are fighting this amendment. After all, Iowa is just over the border, and that's where many companies will send jobs if this passes.
The pro-business thing to do is vote NO on this amendment. Allowing two consenting adults to enter into a legal contract is NO business of the government, PERIOD. And enshrining hate in our state constitution will make it harder to attract quality employees. Again, vote NO on this joke of an amendment!
The only thing that matters to me is what's on the ballot:
If it reads "marriage", then there's no problem. The word is a religious thing, whatever.
If it reads "union", then those setting up the proposition have lied through their teeth when saying they don't mind if there are civil unions but do not want "marriage" usurped. For they want any form of union between two people to be denied, and that goes well beyond the sanctimonious talk, making them hypocrites in the process.
There is a difference.
And we'll see it on November 6th.
Read the wording, remember their statements, and don't be fooled.
Benefits are fine. Children, partners, friends - I do not care. But marriage is one man and one woman. Good grief, are we really going to destroy the fabric of our society? Wake up people - marriage has only one meaning and I will not vote to cheapen mine!
I could not disagree with the title of this article more. The issue of MARRIAGE for many/most companies has NOT been decided long ago. Just because a company like Medtronic provides special benefits for employees of certain lifestyles, does not mean the company condones such activity. For a given company, it is a business decision and a benefit that is offered. Marriage is a different issue. I do not think Medtronic has officially commented one way or another. For many, this is a moral issue (Romans 1:26-27) as well as social issue (the best home for a child is one with a good mother AND father, not two of one and none of the other)and therefore, I do not think they want to make a stance on what may be considered moral or immoral by one group or another when members of each group may work for them.
I think providing a tax break for one group, however, does cross the line into politics (rather than strictly benefits): If certain activity is not legal in a state, and therefore is not given tax breaks by that state, why should a company "go against" that by providing them additional reimbursement for the taxes? Why not provide that for an individual too (who perhaps chooses to be single or not get married)?
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks