Labor Dept.: Same-sex spouses have be...

Labor Dept.: Same-sex spouses have benefit rights

There are 24 comments on the WKYC-TV Cleveland story from Sep 18, 2013, titled Labor Dept.: Same-sex spouses have benefit rights. In it, WKYC-TV Cleveland reports that:

The Labor Department says legally married same-sex couples have the right to participate in employee benefit plans even if they live in states that don't recognize their union.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WKYC-TV Cleveland.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#1 Sep 18, 2013
The "states' rights" champions will hate this.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 Sep 18, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
The "states' rights" champions will hate this.
Why don't you, and your fellow travelers, just work to do away with the states entirely and have the federal government, and it's ALL-KNOWING, ALL-WISE, ALL BENEVOLENT politicians and bureaucrats take over EVERYTHING ?:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#3 Sep 18, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
The "states' rights" champions will hate this.
Good.

It's fun to watch.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Sep 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you, and your fellow travelers, just work to do away with the states entirely and have the federal government, and it's ALL-KNOWING, ALL-WISE, ALL BENEVOLENT politicians and bureaucrats take over EVERYTHING ?:)
I'd actually prefer we do away with all state constitutions & governments.

With so many people moving all over the country during their lifetime, it's ridiculous to view ourselves as Michiganders or Texans or Mainiacs or Californians instead of just Americans.

Why should there be different marriage laws, tax laws, property laws, speed limits, etc, etc, etc, within the same country just because you cross an artificial border?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Sep 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd actually prefer we do away with all state constitutions & governments.
With so many people moving all over the country during their lifetime, it's ridiculous to view ourselves as Michiganders or Texans or Mainiacs or Californians instead of just Americans.
Why should there be different marriage laws, tax laws, property laws, speed limits, etc, etc, etc, within the same country just because you cross an artificial border?
If that's really true, then you do NOT support the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. THAT is UN-AMERICAN and EVIL.

The STATES made the federal government, and NOT the other way around. And according to the Bill Of Rights, the STATES retain their sovereignty and many RIGHTS.

You're an EVIL person.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#6 Sep 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's really true, then you do NOT support the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. THAT is UN-AMERICAN and EVIL.
The STATES made the federal government, and NOT the other way around. And according to the Bill Of Rights, the STATES retain their sovereignty and many RIGHTS.
You're an EVIL person.
You have a very skewed perspective on things, Foxy. It's a two way street.

If the federal level is "evil" for asserting its rights, then the states' rights level is just as "evil" for asserting its claims.

In reality it's a balancing act with both sides needing to compromise. That's what laws are about. Anyone who isn't willing to compromise should move to a desert island and live as a hermit without contact with any other humans.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Sep 19, 2013
Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a very skewed perspective on things, Foxy. It's a two way street.
If the federal level is "evil" for asserting its rights, then the states' rights level is just as "evil" for asserting its claims.
In reality it's a balancing act with both sides needing to compromise. That's what laws are about. Anyone who isn't willing to compromise should move to a desert island and live as a hermit without contact with any other humans.
No. I stand by what I said. You specifically said you are opposed to the U.S. Constitution, and the Rights and Liberties it protects, and that position IS Evil. It's black and white.

And because of your position, you would not be eligible for any government employment, or military service,where one is required to take an oath to uphold the US. Constitution. Because if you're honest, you don't support it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Sep 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's really true, then you do NOT support the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. THAT is UN-AMERICAN and EVIL.
The STATES made the federal government, and NOT the other way around. And according to the Bill Of Rights, the STATES retain their sovereignty and many RIGHTS.
You're an EVIL person.
I understand how and more importantly WHY our constitution was created as it was.

I'm simply saying our country has changed significantly since the 1700's.

Without getting ridiculously preachy as you tend to do whenever your tiny mind is challenged with a new thought, can you give any logical reasons why we still need separate state & federal governments?

The tax savings alone would be enough to entirely wipe out the entire federal debt.

If states have their own governments & constitutions, then why not counties and townships and cities and blocks? Should my township elect our own governor and legislature? Make our own township constitution? Make our own laws irrespective of the state or county constitution and laws?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Sep 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I stand by what I said. You specifically said you are opposed to the U.S. Constitution, and the Rights and Liberties it protects, and that position IS Evil. It's black and white.
And because of your position, you would not be eligible for any government employment, or military service,where one is required to take an oath to uphold the US. Constitution. Because if you're honest, you don't support it.
Can you give a logical reason why the US constitution shouldn't be changed to effectively eliminate state governments?

You DO realize the constitution provides the means to make such changes if the majority of the country desires to do so?

Or do you just have your typical psycho-babble?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#10 Sep 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand how and more importantly WHY our constitution was created as it was.
I'm simply saying our country has changed significantly since the 1700's.
Without getting ridiculously preachy as you tend to do whenever your tiny mind is challenged with a new thought, can you give any logical reasons why we still need separate state & federal governments?
The tax savings alone would be enough to entirely wipe out the entire federal debt.
If states have their own governments & constitutions, then why not counties and townships and cities and blocks? Should my township elect our own governor and legislature? Make our own township constitution? Make our own laws irrespective of the state or county constitution and laws?
We NEED our state governments because the needs of people in New York are obviously not the same as the needs of people in Iowa, Maine, or Alabama.

And we NEED state governments as a bulwark against an oppressive federal government, which the Founders constantly warned us about, worked to prevent, and designed the U.S. Constitution to prevent, SPECIFICALLY, among other things, writing, and ratifying the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights.

APPARENTLY, YOU don't support the Bill Of Rights ! THAT is Evil, Un-American, and DANGEROUS to other American citizens.

Since you don't seem to like or republic at all, why don't you move to The People's Demokratik Socialist Republik Of Kanada, or the Russian Federation ?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Sep 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
We NEED our state governments because the needs of people in New York are obviously not the same as the needs of people in Iowa, Maine, or Alabama.
And we NEED state governments as a bulwark against an oppressive federal government, which the Founders constantly warned us about, worked to prevent, and designed the U.S. Constitution to prevent, SPECIFICALLY, among other things, writing, and ratifying the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights.
APPARENTLY, YOU don't support the Bill Of Rights ! THAT is Evil, Un-American, and DANGEROUS to other American citizens.
Since you don't seem to like or republic at all, why don't you move to The People's Demokratik Socialist Republik Of Kanada, or the Russian Federation ?
How are the needs of someone who lives 500 feet away- but across an arbitrary state border any different than the needs of someone who lives 500 ft away in the other direction? Why can't those differences be dealt with without having another entire layer of bureaucracy and constitutions and often conflicting laws?

Again, I'd ask why that same logic wouldn't apply to counties or cities or townships and have them elect their own governor & have a separate constitution and laws. Don't we need them to protect us from an "oppressive" state government?

The Bill of Rights were redundant and unnecessary, and many of the founders OPPOSED including them in our constitution.

The Constitution establishes a means to amend or change it as our society evolves. Why would they include that if it is "un-American" or "evil" or "dangerous" to suggest we have the right to modify the constitution to better meet the needs of our current society 200+ years later.

Now see if you can answer that without throwing yet another hissyfit.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Sep 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's really true, then you do NOT support the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. THAT is UN-AMERICAN and EVIL.
The STATES made the federal government, and NOT the other way around. And according to the Bill Of Rights, the STATES retain their sovereignty and many RIGHTS.
You're an EVIL person.
The PEOPLE made the Constitution. The instant it was ratified the several States died and were reborn, taking their existence from the Constitution. Unlike the sovereign Citizens of the United States, the States DO get their rights from the Constitution.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13 Sep 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How are the needs of someone who lives 500 feet away- but across an arbitrary state border any different than the needs of someone who lives 500 ft away in the other direction? Why can't those differences be dealt with without having another entire layer of bureaucracy and constitutions and often conflicting laws?
Again, I'd ask why that same logic wouldn't apply to counties or cities or townships and have them elect their own governor & have a separate constitution and laws. Don't we need them to protect us from an "oppressive" state government?
The Bill of Rights were redundant and unnecessary, and many of the founders OPPOSED including them in our constitution.
The Constitution establishes a means to amend or change it as our society evolves. Why would they include that if it is "un-American" or "evil" or "dangerous" to suggest we have the right to modify the constitution to better meet the needs of our current society 200+ years later.
Now see if you can answer that without throwing yet another hissyfit.
At least you admit that you are OPPOSED to, and do not support, the U.S. Constitution in general, and the Bill Of Rights in particular. THAT is EVIL and UN-AMERICAN.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Sep 19, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The PEOPLE made the Constitution. The instant it was ratified the several States died and were reborn, taking their existence from the Constitution. Unlike the sovereign Citizens of the United States, the States DO get their rights from the Constitution.
You have a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution in general, and the Bill Of Rights in particular. The U.S. Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights do NOT "create Rights", i.e. make new ones, rather they "protect" RIGHTS that already EXIST by mere virtue of a person's existence.

Read the plain text of the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. They PROTECT already-existing RIGHTS. Don't believe me ? Ask th. ACLU

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Sep 19, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution in general, and the Bill Of Rights in particular. The U.S. Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights do NOT "create Rights", i.e. make new ones, rather they "protect" RIGHTS that already EXIST by mere virtue of a person's existence.
Read the plain text of the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment. They PROTECT already-existing RIGHTS. Don't believe me ? Ask th. ACLU
Have I ever said anything different?

Only PEOPLE can have Rights. Artificial constructs, collective or not, cannot and do not. States have no Rights.

Again, the instant the U.S. Constitution was declared Ratified, all prior legal existence of the several States immediately ended, and a new legal existence and relationship was created and taking it's existence from that document.

Not so that of the People, who constructed their various legal groupings according and subject to the U.S. Constitution. Some merely carried over their older constitutions, others with amendments, and some crafted and ratified entirely new ones.

Butternut is an ugly color.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#16 Sep 19, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Have I ever said anything different?
Only PEOPLE can have Rights. Artificial constructs, collective or not, cannot and do not. States have no Rights.
Again, the instant the U.S. Constitution was declared Ratified, all prior legal existence of the several States immediately ended, and a new legal existence and relationship was created and taking it's existence from that document.
Not so that of the People, who constructed their various legal groupings according and subject to the U.S. Constitution. Some merely carried over their older constitutions, others with amendments, and some crafted and ratified entirely new ones.
Butternut is an ugly color.
Really ?! A newspaper of a tv station or a radio station has NO free speech rights ? A corporation has n free speech rights ?!

That's certainly not what the U.S. Constitution says, nor what SCOTUS says.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Sep 20, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you admit that you are OPPOSED to, and do not support, the U.S. Constitution in general, and the Bill Of Rights in particular. THAT is EVIL and UN-AMERICAN.
So you were unable to address ANYTHING I posted as usual.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Sep 20, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Really ?! A newspaper of a tv station or a radio station has NO free speech rights ? A corporation has n free speech rights ?!
That's certainly not what the U.S. Constitution says, nor what SCOTUS says.
No, the newspaper or tv station or radio station has no rights whatsoever, because they are inanimate objects. The PEOPLE who own or run those businesses have rights. A corporation is a legal construct which has no rights either; but the PEOPLE who run the corporation have rights.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#19 Sep 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the newspaper or tv station or radio station has no rights whatsoever, because they are inanimate objects. The PEOPLE who own or run those businesses have rights. A corporation is a legal construct which has no rights either; but the PEOPLE who run the corporation have rights.
You obviously need to study Constitutional Law. They entities I mention DO HAVE Constitutional RIGHTS. So says SCOTUS. The final arbiter of the matter.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Sep 20, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously need to study Constitutional Law. They entities I mention DO HAVE Constitutional RIGHTS. So says SCOTUS. The final arbiter of the matter.
You'd be wrong as usual in your interpretation. The INDIVIDUALS which make up the corporation or ownership of the newspaper or radio/tv station have rights. The newspaper itself as an inanimate object has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Gay cake' appeal decided 14 min Newt G s Next Wife 22
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 19 min TRUMP WINNERS 1,859
News Walmart agrees to $7.5 million settlement in di... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 1
News Trudeau tells French-speaking nations there's '... 1 hr GrowUp 12
News Walking Dead Star Says His Beloved Character Is... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 4
News Trump's Pick For Secretary Of Education Is Bets... 2 hr TomInElPaso 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Respect71 42,771
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 hr lides 22,324
More from around the web