Is it conservative to cut gay people off from benefits?

Question

In Michigan, the U of M is required to stop providing benefits to partners and families of gays. Since we passed a law that says that gays cannot marry, the next step for the GOP was to make sure that workplaces cut off funding for partners of gay employees...does this make sense form a fiscally conservative point of view? Was this REALLY the point of making marriage strictly between one man and one woman? Will my tax dollars have to pay for the resulting fallout of denying medical insurance to a same sex partner? Or is denying healthcare to gays the next step?

right, but you can get them for different spouses, should you have more than one, and for their children as well...so I guess, sway, your answer is that YES, that was the point of making gay marriage illegal. I just wish the GOP hadn't told people that they weren't going to do that...I wish they would have been honest to the voters.

Jester, congress writes laws, not governors...and although she tried several times to block it being put on the ballot, as many of us others did ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONFUSING LANGUAGE, it still passed through a very republican controlled legislative branch. Nice try..

proud, yet another hypothetical situation used to try and discredut a very real situation. I guess I got my answer though...and yet another reason i cannot vote for the GOP, as I am conservative...

cvq, I am of the mind that when you deny PREVENTATIVE care to people, they use the emergency room, don;t take meds, etc...making their situation not only worse, but more costly...thus raising MY premiums on insurance. THAT is the correlation between fiscal conservatism and this issue.

yes, we 'just now' made it illegal..actually, in my state, last year.

Answer 1

I can't believe that people are saying that straight people who are a couple can't get benefits w/o being married, so why should gay people? Straight people have the CHOICE of getting married, and therefore getting benefits! Gays are not allowed to get married, and get punished for it by not being able to get benefits! You're saying that they shouldn't get benefits because they're not married, but you won't let them get married. Ridiculous. I can't wrap my head around the fact that you think this is any of your business who people marry.

Answer 2

I honestly don't see the connection between this measure and fiscal conservatism. If a state pays less in benefits it is presumably SAVING the taxpayers money. But I don't think the economic arguments are ones people focus on.

Certainly there are other bases on which to criticize this law. Some will indeed say it is mean-spirited and bigoted.

I dunno.

I think New Hampshire just dsigned a civil unions law today, so maybe it's a "win" in each side's column (to state it crassly).

PS Interesting point! I guess that argument could be used in a lot of contexts, though. I'll have to think on it some more . . . :)

Answer 3

maximum people who oppose gay rights, truly gay marriage, are inspired by skill of religion. they say that the definition of marriage is between a guy and a woman, and that's the tip of it. they can't component to any easily harm that would result from gay rights. it truly is the form of man or woman who's easily no longer confident that gays deserve equivalent rights. on no account. however the traits are sparkling. increasing numbers of international places international are recognizing gay marriage, and the belief is slowly gaining traction here in the U. S.. to illustrate, a stable majority of human beings over age 50 are against gay marriage, whilst a stable majority of human beings decrease than 30 might enable it. over the years, this factors to a relentless develop in help for gay rights as a extra creative and tolerant era comes of age. extra clever previous due than on no account.

Answer 4

Even the least politically-informed conservative knows that homosexuals are the great enemy within. It is their responsibility to assure that gays and lesbians be pushed as far to the margins of society for the personal safety of straights and, well, because that's just how God said it should be.

Same-sex marriage is just a trifle compared to the for-profit death camps they're designing over at the Heritage Foundation.

And, yes, your tax dollars will help pay for this.

Answer 5

Unless you're a white, heterosexual in the middle to high tax bracket, you're unofficially an enemy of conservative America.

Nobody thinks of marriage as some sacred institution anymore.

That's a cover people use so they can discriminate and avoid being called out about it.

Why does the party that loves to tout themselves as patriots, the least apt to help out their fellow Americans?? I see nothing patriotic about your actions.

You're not patriots. You're self-righteous bigots with narrow minds and a complete lack of empathy.

Answer 6

The issues of denying gay rights has nothing to do with a fiscal conservative viewpoint. Denying gay rights is a neo-conservative issue.
There are many of us old time conservatives left in this country who don't see religious moral conviction as an area of concern for the federal government.
Your question regards the actions taken by a state government. I believe that is where the power should remain in this issue. You as a resident of that state should have the right to challenge your own state's action. You have the right, in my opinion, to shape your community as you wish, as long as constitutional rights are not violated.

Answer 7

Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm, is a Democrat. And although she is a fiscal conservative, her positions on social issues indicate she is not a conservative.

Answer 8

I cannot get benefits for anyone other than children or a spouse, why should it be any different for gays?

I cannot get bennies for a "partner" if I am not married to them.......soooooo.

When was gay marriage ever legal, did we JUST NOW make it illegal? When was it defined before?

Answer 9

i think helth care should be denied to all people. but hey those are my thoughts on the issue

Answer 10

Is it liberal for a hotel to discriminate against straights and lesbians for gay men to freely frolic about the place free from scrutiny of their lifestyle?