- This topic contains 0 voices and has 13 replies.
December 5, 2012 at 4:56 pm #605802
I see the City is considering paying married gay employees more than married heterosexual employees. What is the City thinking? This is clearly discriminatory.December 5, 2012 at 5:04 pm #779150
hooper we need a source or something. I want to know what you’re talking about!December 5, 2012 at 5:34 pm #779151December 5, 2012 at 5:35 pm #779152
In the Seattle Times this morning. McGinn was set to offer a proposal to compensate same sex partners who are married a stipend to make up for the fact they will pay higher federal income taxes on medical benefits, because the feds don’t recognize same sex marriages. He feels this would make city compensation more fair across the board.
Before you get your knickers too knotted though, the city attorney has advised McGinn that his proposal is likely illegal and has advised against this approach.December 5, 2012 at 5:35 pm #779153
luckymom30ParticipantDecember 5, 2012 at 5:43 pm #779154
TanDL – yes, the point is that McSchwinn should never have even made the proposal that is discriminatory.December 5, 2012 at 6:10 pm #779155
I’m in agreement with Rasmussen on this. This allowance would have been an inappropriate use of tax dollars.
It would set a dangerous precedent for the city to begin paying allowances for what it perceives to be inequalities in Federal tax law. If you don’t like Federal tax law then work to change it.December 5, 2012 at 6:13 pm #779156
This is why I support McGrinns. He has little chance of implementing his crazy ideas but he announces them anyway.
Comedy gold is what I want in a Mayor. Unless someone pops up that is even more ineffectual, I will be working for his re-election.
That said the concept has merit. There would have to be some creative way to do it and the city attorney should be ask to figure out a way that is legal, constitutional and can be sold to the members of the public that apparently are unaware of the gays in their own extended family. :)December 5, 2012 at 6:41 pm #779157
I like Ken’s take on politics.
Anyway, here’s another gopher hole in the stampede for sexual liberation . . .
By rewarding marriage (gay or otherwise) isn’t government officially discriminating against single people who just wanna shack up and get laid a lot?
I mean really . . . why should we be penalizing these honest f**kers – who generally cost the taxpayer less in terms of court costs – while rewarding dishonest f**kers who will stand up in front of some preacher or govt official and lie through their teeth about “till death do us part”?
Do married people provide some benefit to society that single people don’t? I just can’t see it.December 5, 2012 at 7:06 pm #779158
I’m 100% in agreement of removing ALL government recognition of “marriage” for purposes of taxes, benefits, legal recognition, etc. If you want someone else making medical decisions for you, for example, then sign a power of attorney. There should be zero incentive (such as spousal benefits) or disincentive (such as marriage tax penalty) for simply signing a couple or pieces of paper.
Religions can continue to have their own recognition or celebration of shared love and commitment. But there would be no legal recognition or legal benefits associated with it.December 5, 2012 at 7:59 pm #779159
“Do married people provide some benefit to society that single people don’t? I just can’t see it.”
So, apparently, you don’t believe in all the studies on “family values” that always show that the nuclear family (hetero, one man, one woman, with babies)is the foundation of all society, without which we would perish from this Earth, and which should be supported by societal policies favoring them, including tax breaks. Really? You liberals…December 5, 2012 at 8:18 pm #779160
Wasn’t no “till death do us part” in MY marriage vows, DBP. Other married folks can speak for themselves.December 5, 2012 at 8:22 pm #779161
No, I don’t believe all that stuff, dobro. But apparently a lot of good ole fashioned gay people do. (Except for the “hetero” part.)
;-)December 5, 2012 at 8:24 pm #779162
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.