More unintended consequences

[drscott]

Dang -- many large employers are dropping domestic partner benefits in Massachusetts where it is now possible to get married. So if you've been DPs until now you either accept all the consequences of state codification by getting married or give up all partner benefits. Argh.

Comments

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

The whole thing seems rather counter intuitive in my mind. Not all are wanting to be married - especially if they know that they will not be married due to a future move out of the state or what have you.

This either or thing is sooo wrong.

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

The article mentions the unfairness of it -- that the other benefits of marriage (tax union, Federal rights) are still not available, but the employers are maintaining status is now equivalent so they don't need to provide DP benefits.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

Having gone back and read the article, which I had not realized you had linked to, although the message it said was what I thought initially and then later reading the posts below, what I see is really a knee jerk reaction on the part of some employers without thinking ahead to the potential for even Massachuset's gay marriage law to be revoked, will have those of us who live there jumping through hoops, yet again, and still the penalties we face financially will be there the whole time.

It's a shame but I think a lot of society is too quick to judge and react accordingly - and often with poor results due to not having all the info to make a well informed decision/benefit or what have you.

All in all, I have to agree, it's a sticky/morass of a situation this all is.

Blame much of it on the conservatives and the missuse of the word "marriage".

[furfairy.livejournal.com]

Some people who think gay people should ape straight institutions like marriage are applauding this- people like Andrew Sullivan. As a libertarian I think such things are none of the state's business, and that such arrangements for all people, straight or gay, should be done with legal arrangements like powers of attorney.

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

I agree that would be preferable -- except there are too many benefits to marriage embedded in law that cannot be privately contracted. Unless you propose some sort of libertarian paradise where there are no subsidies to families like tax benefits, no public agencies engaged in determining who are allowed to be parents, etc., we are required to seek out the full benefits of legal marriage for those who want them.

My proposal for immediate (and possible) reforms would include a variety of standard contracts for different types of commitment; full marriage, marriage-lite (as in some parts of Europe now), DPs (anyone who wanst to form a domestic unit, for whatever purpose), etc.

[orange-groves.livejournal.com]

I recently saw that Andrew Sullivan has adopted a bearish look with short hair, beard, and mustache. I rather tired of media treating him sometimes like he is the ONLY gay spokesperson worth reading or interviewing.

[furfairy.livejournal.com]

He wrote a good short article some time ago for Salon about being a bear and the bear phenom. I too wonder why the media hasn't adopted more gay voices. Some of the usual suspects aren't very original and aren't worth listening to. At least Sullivan makes an attempt to present well-thought-out opinions. Camille Paglia is someone I'd like to hear more from.

[unzeugmatic.livejournal.com]

I happen to have just re-read that article, and I was reminded of why I think so little of Andrew Sullivan. In that article he got a few things right about the Bear world, and wrote about them quite well, but he seemed unable to resist coupling "here's what bears are" with a bunch of ignorant and quite bigoted claptrap about "here's how icky gay people are."

I also think he got a little confused about the odd mythical notion of "natural" masculinity, but that's another issue.

Here's the Camille Paglia game I play: Listen to her talk, and count the number of things she says that are actual observations/conclusions of her own ("Nicole Simpson's persona floated over the trial like a ghost") and the number of things she says that are claims (mostly demonstrably false) about what other people believe ("Feminists are anti-sex, and they criticize me for being pro-sex."). The last time I played this the ratio was 1:6, but I've come up with figures as high as 1:35, and once 0:20.

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

Camille's schtick is more about being provocative and entertaining than being accurate. As an aid to thought her noisemaking can be helpful, but it would be unwise to look to her for truth. :-)

[unzeugmatic.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was what I was getting at in part. I didn't get too far into Sexual Personae because it was all about riff (poetic riff in many cases, but still riff) rather than actual information or insight. There was an extensive riff on cats in ancient Egypt, for example, that was entirely stuff rolling out of her pen, idiosyncratic thoughts about cats that had very little connection to, say, actual cat behavior and certainly no connection at all to Egyptian deities or art. It's fun, but I kept waiting for the meat.

In general, basic Appolonian vs. Dionysian dichotomy was kind of yesterday 6 thousand years ago. I'm not sure what she thought she was adding to the discussion. I gave up about page 120, waiting for the illuminating insight I had been promised on the book jacket.

[orange-groves.livejournal.com]

Somewhat similar to FOX NEWS, no?

[furfairy.livejournal.com]

A great many feminists were anti-sex. (I don't know what the current state of feminism is because I don't really care. Identity politics is counterproductive.) I went to college in the late 80's to early 90's. The young feminist students were anti sex!

Oh but it's all about entertainment anyway. And that's what CP and AS provide, and do a very good job of it too. Fox, CNN, the network news is pure entertainment, designed to attract large audiences with salacious stories (Peterson Trial) that have little to no bearing on people's lives. Other news sources can be idological echo chambers (NPR) or both entertainment and echo chamber (Fox News). Not much gets through to us that hasn't be filtered to distortion. Could it be that the Daily Show really is the best news source? It certainly exposes our newsmedia for what it is.

[unzeugmatic.livejournal.com]

I wrote up a long response to this, a bit about the history of feminism and the anti-porn/porn wars with a little about early (two decades before the 90s) stuff about anti-penetration, noting that none of that could fairly be called "anti-sex" per se, even the flashpoint maligned writings of Andrea Dworkin. But you note that this is not a particular interest of yours and that would certainly clutter up poor Scott's journal, so I'll leave it at this:

A great many feminists were anti-sex.

The young feminist students were anti sex!

Do think that this is how these (unnamed uncited and unsummarized) feminists would have described their own position, as "anti-sex"?

I'm not asking whether you would filter it like this, I'm asking whether you think this is a fair summary of how they would describe their own positions?

Actually I'm not asking for your response, I'm simply being rhetorical because I am not comfortable letting those statements about feminist positions stand without comment. You're convinced this is so, and so be it, but I want to point out that in general calling somebody "anti-sex" is a traditional populist insult, meant to diminish one's opposition as fuddy-duddy.

"Goodness, how awful those great many feminists must be, to be anti-sex! But me, I'm pro-sex."

[Many cheers from the pro-sex crowd. Sex! Sex! Sex! Hip-hip hooray! More sex! We like sex!]

See how easy it is?

[unzeugmatic.livejournal.com]

Scott's journal? What was I thinking?

Sorry, I got confused by the livejournal name for a brief second. But hey, you're one of those lucky two-first-name people!

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

All three of my names can be used as both first and last names, so there are six ways you can reasonably screw up my name if you wish! I got used to being called "Scott" in school....

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

What's most disheartening is that some of us in Massachusetts used to raise questions about topics like this during the run-up to the big court cases. We were frequently taken as being anti-same-sex-marriage or not with the program. One of my friends (who wound up getting married to her partner the very first day she could, because she feels same-sex marriage IS important) got chastized by people for ALSO supporting alternatives to marriage.

Passions seem to run high around these things.

We had a Human Resources briefing earlier this week regarding policy changes to the employee handbook, University-wide; I asked the head of our local HR about this very issue. For now, the University is keeping domestic partnership. But primarily because the state of same-sex marriage, even in Mass, is so precarious. They may junk DP if same-sex marriage survives the referendum/amendment process of the next couple of years.

I also asked about whether the University would consider the idea of domestic partnership for ANY established, committed couple, not just same-sex ones. That caused a jaw or two to drop. But I did get a kudo ... from my married, straight colleague, who tends to see things in human-rights terms, not special-category terms.

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

When you're a minority within a minority and political decisions are being made, there's little chance your needs will be acknowledged. Much of this weirdness is due to the crufty benefits schemes come up by well-meaning but unimaginative political bodies -- Social Security, employer-provided medical insurance, adoption regulations, hospital privacy laws, etc. Even when gay people have gotten one of these systems to recognize us, there will still be huge problems. One size does not fit all.

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

It's been a real test of my idealism and faith in positive change. The rhetoric around inclusion in the community is far ahead of the reality--which is normal and while I don't like it, I understand.

What's a little less "fun" is to raise the red flag, get ignored or dissed for doing so, be told that one's own diversity is NOT what people want to include (the polyamory discussion, in particular, is very scary for many marriage advocates), be told that one still has to be on board or one is not a team player, find ways to keep one's faith in the overall process despite all that ... and then watch the hand-wringing and loss of faith amongst those who got to drive the flawed process.

It's all par for the course, but it ain't pretty.

I have friends who feel they're going to "have to" get married now, even though they're not sure it's the right decision. And suppose, after all that, their marriages get yanked, as those in SF were?

It's a morass. Crossing my fingers and digging in to be the most help I can ... from my position in the very back of the community bus (or so it sometimes feels) :)

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

Hey, the bad boys at the back of the bus are WAY more fun. :-)

Representative government is an extraordinarily obtuse and inefficient instrument for accomplishing anything. The "health insurance through employer" scheme dates back to World War II wage and price controls: employers began to provide medical care as a perk to get around their inability to pay higher wages, and these were exempted from income taxation, so not only do those paying for their own care not get a tax break (except in rare instances), they pay much higher rates for care (because the entire system is now set up to provide discounted rates only to buyer cooperatives, either insurance plans or government plans.) If either no or all medical costs were tax free and paid for by the citizen based on actual risk ratings, the issue of medical benefits for partners goes away, because there is no longer a subsidy for some and a penalty for others.

The problem with majority-rule politics is that minorities (and any subtle or complex considerations they may bring to the table) are ignored. The bandwagon must present a united front: you are either on board 100% or in league with Bad People. You polyamory people shoudl just shut up until we've got ours, because your story confuses our message. :-P

[quirkstreet.livejournal.com]

Hey, the bad boys at the back of the bus are WAY more fun. :-)

But of course!

As for your critique of majority-rule ... have you been talking to Lani Guinier again? :)

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

I've never had the pleasure. But at least she thinks. I'd probably agree with her about half the time (I'm all for proportional representation, for example). Party line people are unaware (and most sources of information will never inform them) that both parties cooperate to maintain privileges for their favored large-group constituencies at the expense of everyone else.