Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 06-26-2002, 01:00 AM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44912-2002Jun25.html" target="_blank">Believe it!</a>

"Gay activists had lobbied for the bill, and the Justice Department had objected to it, saying in a letter to Congress that the benefit had been designed for immediate survivors with pressing needs and that the bill was "likely to create unintended and unfortunate results."

What a disaster Ashcroft is!

TollHouse · 06-26-2002, 06:52 AM

Damn, did I just read that?

Obviously, times are changing, if even a conservative administration can sign this into law.

Skeptictank · 06-26-2002, 06:58 AM

Shouldn't someone with more authority than I chuck this over to the PD forum?

Vorkosigan · 06-26-2002, 07:15 AM

I thought about posting it there....but for some reason I have been unable to post from time to time, so when i finally got through, it was to this forum.

Vorkosigan

MassAtheist · 06-26-2002, 08:29 AM

Read it carefully. This law allows benefits to be paid to the beneficiary of the victim's life insurance policy - even if the beneficiary is a domestic partner. I don't understand why these benefits were not paid to begin with. This is not any big victory for gay rights.

miscreant · 06-26-2002, 08:36 AM

Quote:

<strong>
Putting the stamp of approval on a deviant lifestyle should not be the mark of a conservative administration
</strong>

Yet they still support the Catholic priests...

Miscreant

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: miscreant ]</p>

Toto · 06-26-2002, 09:46 AM

This can stay here as part of our Religious Right coverage.

Quote:

The announcement represented a rare case in which Bush was willing to take on the Republican Party's right wing. Indeed, the decision incited some conservative leaders, who already were displeased with Bush about issues that include his approval of campaign finance reform and support for a Palestinian state.

"Homosexual folks see this as a first step toward recognizing homosexuality on the same level as marriage, and that's what it will be used for," said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Gay activists said that although the Bush administration has been surprisingly non-hostile to their issues, it also has avoided provoking conservatives by appearing too accommodating. White House officials held an unannounced briefing in April for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group. The White House said it has recently provided similar sessions for groups including Jews and grocers.

. . .

At the same time, Bush declined for the second year in a row to follow the lead of President Bill Clinton and sign a proclamation designating Pride Month. Some agencies cited that in refusing to allow their civil rights offices to sponsor events. Partly for that reason, a group representing gay Commerce Department employees has filed a complaint with the department alleging it has not followed internal regulations that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

. . .

Exit polls show Bush took 25 percent of the gay vote, a statistically insignificant increase from Robert J. Dole's 23 percent in 1996.

Conservatives had a mixed reaction to the new law. Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said it sets a potentially expensive precedent. "Putting the stamp of approval on a deviant lifestyle should not be the mark of a conservative administration," he said. However, Michael Schwartz of Concerned Women for America noted that the new law does not say anything specific about domestic partners. He said the only way to avoid having them benefit would be to single out such arrangements.

Those homosexual folks have got to stop voting for politicians who don't respect them.

Writer@Large · 06-26-2002, 11:31 AM

I think this is a better PD topic ...

--W@L

06-26-2002, 01:00 AM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Bush Signs Same Sex Benefits Act <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44912-2002Jun25.html" target="_blank">Believe it!</a> "Gay activists had lobbied for the bill, and the Justice Department had objected to it, saying in a letter to Congress that the benefit had been designed for immediate survivors with pressing needs and that the bill was "likely to create unintended and unfortunate results." What a disaster Ashcroft is!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2002, 06:52 AM	#2
TollHouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 8,745	Damn, did I just read that? Obviously, times are changing, if even a conservative administration can sign this into law.

06-26-2002, 06:58 AM	#3
Skeptictank Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: CONUS Posts: 901	Shouldn't someone with more authority than I chuck this over to the PD forum?

06-26-2002, 07:15 AM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I thought about posting it there....but for some reason I have been unable to post from time to time, so when i finally got through, it was to this forum. Vorkosigan

06-26-2002, 08:29 AM	#5
MassAtheist Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 177	Read it carefully. This law allows benefits to be paid to the beneficiary of the victim's life insurance policy - even if the beneficiary is a domestic partner. I don't understand why these benefits were not paid to begin with. This is not any big victory for gay rights.

06-26-2002, 11:31 AM	#8
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	I think this is a better PD topic ... --W@L

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.