Benefits fight brings lesbian couple to steps of Supreme Court
November 25, 2012 at 6:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a closed-door conference for Friday to review cases that seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed by President Clinton. Continue Reading
God bless and God speed. Hopefully gay couples will finally get some of the same rights and benefits that straight couples have enjoyed for years.
Hot debate. What do you think?
74 
80
They shouldn’t it’s wrong !
Hot debate. What do you think?
65 
71
That is mean.
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
30
No what they are doing is sick ! ( in the true sense of the word).
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
30
Who are you to say? I really want you to tell me.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
24
And who are you to say someone can’t disagree with you?
Like or Dislike:
10 
4
I think he is asking what his qualifications are to label them as “sick.” The APA does not view homosexuality as deviant and there is no medical connection to the notion of it being sick. Some religious folks use particular translations of the bible (and other religious books) to try to justify this type of view (ignoring that other translations take different point of view and that the bible has lots of other commandments most of us regularly ignore, slavery, not eating dairy and meat together, etc.), but others claim the bible has no such restrictions (and some Christian churches recognize these relationships).
Note, I understand that anyone may have a personal view that something is “sick.” Just as 50 years ago people could view an interracial marriage as “sick.” And I also understand that bigotry and bias dies hard. But we do seem to be growing out of this particular bias as a society.
Like or Dislike:
6 
11
16 trillion in debt. How many news stories has the DNT done on that??? It seems like there’s a new story on Gay Marriage everyday on the DNT, it’s starting to get a little ridiculous. Newspapers are going bye bye and I think I see why..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
64 
46
Over 65% of Duluthians have spoken and this sad amendment was voted down (88.23% in lovely the Chester Park neighborhood). Unfortunately by looking at popular support of the minority opinions on this forum, maybe people think this thing is a done deal. Far from the case, but the momentum is surging; the time is now.
I am one of three siblings. By far the longest and most successful relationship of the three of us is the 20 year same sex relationship of my twin sister. She is a very successful engineer with the U of M MPLS and the fact that her partner is a woman has cost them well over $100,000.00 through the years. In spite of this these two industrious women are raising three kids near Lake Harriet in fine fashion. Hard working, well educated community members.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
62 
41
…and one of the lesbian’s last name is ‘Cunninghis’!? I know it’s immature, but man, there’s a pretty good joke there, somewhere!
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
34
IMO- It is not the marriage status that is driving this whole move as much as it is getting benefits of married couples.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
8
I married my wife (female) for love, it was never money. Money money money, in a rich mans world..
The same sex people have left the transgenders behind and now they are complaining in the military. All about money, money, money..
“She is a very successful engineer with the U of M MPLS and the fact that her partner is a woman has cost them well over $100,000.00 through the years”.
Now it’s a problem, we want some of the Money, money, money..
All I need is Love, h-ll take my money, without love you are a poor Man anyways.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
32
They just want to be treated fair.
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
32
Bob,
Even though you married for love, you might be upset if the people who live in the same city with the same job got health care benefits and tax breaks for being married but you didn’t, simply because they thought your marriage was somehow “not good enough.”
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
25
No, they want to force people who have legitimate reasons and rights to disagree to say it’s OK.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
24
If they get the legal right to health care benefits just like straight couples, does that force you to say their relationship is okay?
I think not.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
20
Your mindset will eventually die off. You will be replaced as our culture EVOLVES. Yep I said EVOLVES.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
24
Express as you may want, but it is all about Money. Jealousy and Greed the great I want what you have under the name of “equality”.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
22
Would it be only about money and greed if it was YOU who was denied the spousal health care benefits, and YOU wanted to have this benefit like any other married couple?????
I know a lot of people who want the spousal health care benefit, but didn’t get married out of greed!!!!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
15
Money, money, I want, money money. Cometh always from the mouths…
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
17
@Bob
You know Bob, maybe it is about the money. The current system is a wealth redistribution system, homosexuals (and single people) pay more for benefits, more in taxes and receive fewer benefits, and this money is then redistributed to heterosexual couples. And maybe homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to receive those benefits. But if I understand your viewpoint, the natural remedy would be for your side to advocate for eliminating all of the wealth redistribution benefits. Give back those tax breaks. Give up spousal benefits. Make it so that heterosexual couples are NOT automatically assumed to be the medical decision maker and instead require all couples to make sure they have proper legal papers filed.
You push for that, leveling the playing field and making everything fair for everyone by eliminating all the legal benefits of marriage, then I will buy the rhetoric. But right now, as part of a heterosexual couple you seem to be happy to keep the extra money that you are taking out of the pockets of others, so lets not throw too many stones.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
12
If you got rid of the spousal healthcare benefit fewer women would be living off the backs of men. All women would have to get good paying jobs with benefits, pay their own bills, and be a more productive part of society. Man oh man … would we ever hear some whining then.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
17
Nice oration RM, but the end result even in your words is Money, money, money.. I want what you have, money. If money were not involved there would be no subject matter. Greed and Jealousy the root of all mans evil.
Like or Dislike:
7 
12
@Bob,
Money would not be an issue if the money was not being redistributed so UNFAIRLY from homosexuals to heterosexuals. RM’s point was that the heterosexuals are unfairly TAKING money from homosexuals in a wealth redistribution.
RM is right: “homosexuals (and single people) pay more for benefits, more in taxes and receive fewer benefits, and this money is then redistributed to heterosexual couples.” It is a little about money, but if your argument is correct, the GREEDY people are actually the heterosexual married couples who are unfairly taking too much of the pie.
Being against “stealing” and “theft” are also about money, but they are more about fairness and justice. You are against stealing, right? Isn’t stealing also about money, and justice as well?
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
Sam, you have just reaffirmed it is all about money, money. Do any of you’s think the cost will go down, not, more want more cost. Share the wealth, bunk, just more will be taken. Money, money. But you’s can not see through your jealous greed.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Why is it that you feel the need to post these senseless insults every time there’s a story about homosexuals?
Like or Dislike:
9 
10
@Bob
There’s the thing. You say you think its all about money. If it is, you could advocate for eliminating all of the advantages for legally getting married and that would end the issue, right?? That is what you are claiming.
Problem is, you KNOW that is not the issue. The legal stuff is simply part of treating homosexuals fairly and not as second class citizens. And I don’t think you are comfortable with that. And, unfortunately for you, history is against you. Gay marriage is legal in 7 states and that is going to grow very quickly now.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8
Vune, “Why is it that you feel the need to post these senseless insults every time there’s a story about homosexuals?” Your words not mine. You try to take what I print and write your untrue story.
RickM, I am sure society will allow some form of joint relationship in the future, at which time the elimination of deductions (because the country is broke) will happen. Who cares right, as long as we all pay more.
I will advocate the removal of 100% of all deductions for every aspect of life in the US and we all equally pay 50% of assets and income into the treasury annually. This will also include the removal of all social programs.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
Your words, Bob. The only thing that you have said (and you’ve said it repeatedly) is that homosexuals are greedy, jealous, and care only about money. Do you think your wife would be proud of the things you’ve written here?
Every time there’s a story about homosexuals, you find some way to insult them. Are you so bitter about the marriage amendment vote that you can’t even IGNORE this issue?
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Bob: “RickM, I am sure society will allow some form of joint relationship in the future, at which time the elimination of deductions (because the country is broke) will happen.”
Broke?? Ummm … no. And clearly not on that path. The deficit is actually dropping at a faster pace than any time in our history (though thats mostly a function of the economy recovering). I am curious Bob, if the economy continues to recover, as every economist predicts, and the 12 million jobs that are expected to be added over the next four years if the president and congress simply do nothing, what are you going to be unhappy about?? What will Republican politicians run on?? It honestly seems like you are secretly hoping our economy will crater (not that you are the only one, this seems to be the hope of every conservative on the radio). I can never figure out how people who claim to love America so much can hate Americans so much.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
Bob: “I will advocate the removal of 100% of all deductions for every aspect of life in the US and we all equally pay 50% of assets and income into the treasury annually. This will also include the removal of all social programs.”
Ummm … the highest average tax rate paid by ANY group of Americans is a little under 32% (note this is NOT the top 1%, they pay slightly less). This is ALL taxes, federal state and local. If you don’t understand this given the federal tax rates, go look at Mitt Romney’s tax form where he paid less than 15% of his huge income in federal taxes (and remember, he could have paid less but didn’t take all of his deductions).
BTW, I am not the right person to aim the notion of a flat tax at. I would be happy to go to a flat tax scheme like Rick Perry’s if you could find some way that congress wouldn’t pollute it with special tax breaks for big companies and the wealthy. I like Perry’s proposal. 20% tax on income and the same thing on business, but each person would get a significant personal deduction. If you make that deduction $10K a person then a family of four would pay 20% on their income, but only that part about $40K. So, if they make $60K they pay $4K. Etc. I suspect we might have to go up to something like 23% for federal taxes to balance the federal budget, but even 25% would be more than we would need to balance things. This sort of approach would make it much harder for the rich to game the system.
So, the 50% thing with no social programs is just silliness. Doesn’t fit the numbers at all.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Vune, again your words, I have never mention orientation in my words, just happens to be the individuals in this article. My words are this case is based on greed of these two wanting a piece of the pie. They deserve it no more than the single couple living together or a single person living alone, why are they special? I do not/did not even advocate for the hetros to have this privilege.
RickM, zero deductions mean zero, family of 10 or single, zero…. Call me in 4 years and apologize.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
@Bob
“RickM, zero deductions mean zero, family of 10 or single, zero…. Call me in 4 years and apologize.”
Sigh. Bob, there is literally no circumstance short of an actual apocalypse (alien invasion, asteroid heading directly for earth), literally none, that would cause us to implement a 50% flat federal tax. None. There is no credible economist anywhere who would suggest it. Yes, there may be some fools in Congress and from the conservative entertainment complex who might suggest ideas approaching this — though of course even they would not suggest such a ridiculously high rate, but remember, most of those folks couldn’t count to 20 without taking off their shoes and socks.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Rick, I should have clarified, total tax package, Fed, State, County, City… Key is ZERO deductions period..!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
This is not a single couple living together. This is a married couple asking for equal treatment under the law. The only reason they are being denied those benefits is because they are homosexuals.
It takes some twisted logic to label this couple as “greedy” for seeking the same benefits that you & I take for granted. The only way it makes sense is if you simply hate gay people, and you’ll say anything to insult them.
Grow up.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Who am I to say they should not have the same rights as I do? The law needs to be redefined so people can all be treated the same, without race, religion, sexual orientation, or cultural entering into the picture.
Hot debate. What do you think?
34 
21
Mike- Exactly.
The ideals of country is that we don’t delegate legal rights to separate groups based on sex, religion or race. Catholics being big push against gay rights and even spent money lobbying to continue to discriminate against gays but I wonder how they would feel if they lost their non-profit status while other Christian based religions kept there’s? Do you think there would be lot’s of protests and complaining from Catholics thats not fair? Think they would complain that they’re entitled to exact same rights as others and that just because their beliefs are little different that they shouldn’t lose their legal rights and have to pay more money.
Somehow I think they would be first to holler about equality for all and that shouldn’t discriminate legal rights based on religion and it’s their Constitution right to be treated equally. Then maybe am wrong and they’d just shrugg and say …well, that’s fair.
“Perspective is in the eye of the beholder” Ralph Waldo Emerson
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Get rid of the spousal healthcare benefit and this little issue would disappear overnight.
Like or Dislike:
13 
13
Giving homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is a much simpler solution.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
20
Rick, there really is nothing on this earth more natural than a man and woman together. To imply two men sodomizing each other is perfectly natural, normal behavior is asinine. What is society going to do when everyone’s gay?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Nothing more natural?? In what sense? Since you mention sodomizing, I will assume you mean in a sexual/reproductive sense. Sexual reproduction is quite varied here on earth. Most plants need intermediaries. Some species lay eggs that must be fertilized by the male (without a lot of interaction between the two). There is asexual reproduction in some lower life forms. And, most interestingly, there is clearly homosexual interaction among many species besides humans. So, having studied nature, I think clearly the notion that “nothing … is more natural” is clearly false on its face. Its all natural. And we have plenty of evidence that homosexuality is at least partly genetically determined, and so to claim it is not natural is to claim that nature or God did not intend to make them that way.
BTW, the “two men sodomizing each other” is an interesting and very revealing choice of phrase. Lets deconstruct it. Sodomy is a slippery term (no pun intended). In its widest definition, it refers to any non penile/vaginal sexual relations. So, under that definition, oral and anal sex as well as mutual masturbation are ALL sodomy. Looking at the prevalence of the numbers, a huge majority of heterosexuals engage in at least some form of sodomy at some point.
Now, some people think of sodomy as only anal sex. If we operate under that definition the numbers are different, and they vary over time and by culture. What we do know is that anal sex overall has increased quite a bit, and the incidence among heterosexuals has risen to somewhere between 20% and 50% of heterosexuals in this country (depending on the study). The incidence among homosexual men is higher (anywhere from 40 to 80% depending on the study), but there are lots of homosexual men who do NOT participate in anal sex. So, lets see. Assume that 33% of heterosexuals engage in anal sex. If we assume roughly homosexuals are roughly evenly divided among the genders, and 80% of gay man participate in anal sex and roughly 0% of gay women (probably higher, but the 80% for gay men is the highest figure for that group) participate in anal sex then the average prevalence among homosexuals would be about 40%. So, under these assumptions homosexuals participate in anal sex at a somewhat higher percentage than heterosexuals, but not that much higher.
In any case, I find the notion that anything consenting adults do in there own home being the province of the government or a religion to be a repellant notion. And I think THAT is the most natural instinct an American has.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
Rick, neither government nor religion play a part in my statement. The crush my 7 year old son has on his “girl” friend because she plays with him, thinks he is hilarious and makes sure he’s not sad, it’s simple, natural, he has tons of “boy” friends, totally different relationships, all good and healthy. I like gay people, I wish them no ill will. But your assertion that homosexuality is just a natural progression in our evolution is outrageous, no matter how many species have anal sex. I think your whole argument is silly, and extremely weak, regardless of how many statistics you can cite.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
I never suggested that homosexuality was part of any progression, you may want to check the definition of the concept. I said that homosexuality occurs naturally some percentage of the time, and that as society has started to erase its bigotry it has become easier for these people to be themselves. And I suspect if you sat down with one of your homosexual friends or family members (even if you don’t think you have one, you likely do, they just haven’t come out to you), you would find out how natural it is. Many of my gay friends would have given almost anything to be heterosexual when they were young. If it were actually possible to will yourself to be heterosexual, many of them would have done so just to fit in. Unfortunately, that was not how God or nature made them. And as I noted, we have plenty of evidence that homosexuality occurs in other species and that there are genetic origins of homosexuality. So, feel free to go look up the definition of natural and revisit your argument.
BTW, if you want to claim that homosexuality does not feel natural to *you*, feel free. People in some of our original colonies thought that slavery was the natural state for people of African origin (even had Biblical passages they used to support it) and regularly talked about watching their slaves and how natural their position seemed. So, I am guessing that you (like them) take the term natural to mean some amalgam of “thats what I grew up with and thats what I am comfortable with” (something fairly obvious from your previous focus on “sodomy”).
You know, I just read a story about an evangelical man who posed as a gay man for a year to try and understand. He wrote a book, might help you better understand. Its mentioned in the story: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/02/christians-year-of-living-gay-leads-to-dramatic-change-sparks-controversy/?hpt=hp_c2 .
Like or Dislike:
0 
3