Corporations urge Supreme Court to embrace gay marriage

Comments (40)
logicus wrote:

Headline should read: Corporate leaders [not corporations] urge …

Feb 27, 2013 7:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

I totally support what these corporations are trying to do. However I question why a couple hundred corporations pull more weight with the supreme court than an equal number (or more) of individual citizens.

Feb 27, 2013 8:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
ldfrmc wrote:

Companies in California not only categorize employees and benefits into three groups – married, straight (all family benefits), married, gay (no federal family benefits), and singles.

They also ask where and when gay couples married (June to November 2008). And have to track two more groups – domestic partners, straight (no federal benefits) and domestic partners, gay (no federal benefits) – the last two are differentiated for insurance purposes (actuarial gender tables for life insurance, and, health insurance, partner premium rates for a man and a woman, two men and two women).

When a company considers transfers for employees to locations out-of-state, they have to account for benefit losses when the new state does not recognize married, same-sex employees and spouses, or domestic partners.

Think what happens now in one of the largest government employers – the military.

And, it’s pretty stupid that someone must disclose they are gay to a prospective employer, by asking if domestic partner benefits are offered. Something a prospective employee does not have to do by saying they are married.

It’s understandable that corporations want a consistent set of rules for benefits, tax withholding and insurance coverage and want to avoid lawsuits for unfair, unequal treatment. Employees sure do want fairness and consistency.

Why does the government not have a single set of rules and requirements for employers and employees?

Feb 27, 2013 9:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
Kuji wrote:

“Whipsplash wrote:
I totally support what these corporations are trying to do. However I question why a couple hundred corporations pull more weight with the supreme court than an equal number (or more) of individual citizens.”

Corporations tend to pull more weight because they have more weight, such as an army of top notch lawyers, to help make the legal statement to the Supreme Court. They aren’t a lobby group, they are the entity that control 99% of all lobby groups. While the supreme court is supposed to be impartial, if 200 Corporations want to push a social issue into the national forefront, then by God, they will push a national issue harder than any other individual or non-corporate entity can – without breaking a sweat. Lastly, corporations are not “new” to politics and government. They have a hand in shaping policy, have the ears of many, if not all, politicians, and have been quite involved for years. So I’m not sure why this is a surprise that when Corporations issue joint statements, people tend to listen?

Feb 27, 2013 9:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Due to the most deadly epidemic known (and still no cure in sight), ever, insurance premiums should skyrocket at these companies.

Feb 27, 2013 9:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@bobber1956

Actually heterosexuals are the group which have more cases of Aids than gays. So no, this will not cause insurance premiums to go up.

Gays are just people, who were born hard wired differently, they are just human beings who should have the same rights as anyone else.

Feb 27, 2013 10:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Speaker2
Your opinion. Mine and the majority of Americans-no they should not.

Feb 27, 2013 10:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“However I question why a couple hundred corporations pull more weight with the supreme court than an equal number (or more) of individual citizens”

Because corporations have far more rights than citizens now – in spite of the Constitution never giving a corporation a single right at all.

Feb 27, 2013 10:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

This explains why I am having trouble getting a better job, I am straight.

Feb 27, 2013 10:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
mikemm wrote:

It seems like a no-brainer. Equal rights cannot be denied based on predjudice alone. Social attitudes have changed to where this is not opposed by a large majority of voters anymore. It makes good corporate sense to be open and accepting to all workers and customers. Even the GOP, who have been the one most opposed are turning around, but this is still a re-election issue for them, so only the ones from liberal states or not running for re-election can publically support it.
I’ll be very surprised if the SCOTUS doesn’t rule the DOM and state laws denying rights to legally married same-sex couples.

Feb 27, 2013 10:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Speaker2 wrote:

@bober1956

well besides being wrong on insurance cost, you are also wrong how a majority of Americans feel about gays and gay marriage, +51% approve gays having the same rights.

You get right down to it, marriage is a life time contract between two people. Its about rights. Religion should have nothing to do with it.

People are just people, no matter how they are wire for sexual and emotional attraction. If two people love each other, that’s all that matters.

If you are straight, fine…but two gay people marrying, just doesn’t affect you. So why should you care?

Feb 27, 2013 10:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
ldfrmc wrote:

americanguy: “This explains why I am having trouble getting a better job, I am straight.”

LOL. You can always change sides. They say it’s a “choice.”

Maybe, just “look the part.”

Feb 27, 2013 10:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
ldfrmc wrote:

Most recent Gallup polls:

Relationships between adult gays should be legal: 63% yes.
Marriage between adult gays should be legal/valid: 53% yes.
Equal rights for gays in terms of job opportunities: 89% yes.

When the Supreme Court overturned inter-racial marriage bans in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) 70% of the people polled DISAPPROVED. Yet, nothing happened (protests, riots, marriage bureaus picketed) after that decision.

This move by America’s Corporations is long over-due.

Feb 27, 2013 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jameson4Lunch wrote:

Marriage is a private contract between 2 individuals, and should be looked at in such a way by the law. The government, state or federal, should not look at marriage as special status, nothing but private contract. If employers want to offer benefits, that should be their choice, to attract talent.

Feb 27, 2013 11:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jameson4Lunch wrote:

Marriage is a private contract between 2 individuals, and should be looked at in such a way by the law. The government, state or federal, should not look at marriage as special status, nothing but private contract. If employers want to offer benefits, that should be their choice, to attract talent.

Feb 27, 2013 11:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Thank you Bobber1956 and OdumbChicago for reminding us that there is a still a significant part of the American population that are religious fundamentalists, really no different then the Taliban.

Feb 27, 2013 12:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lemonfemale wrote:

They should strike DOMA. On narrow Constitutional grounds if nothing else. The Fed has only enumerated powers. Marriage is not one of them. Otherwise, I believe marriage is a natural right of adults.

Feb 27, 2013 1:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

USAPragmatist
No one said anythig about religeon except you bigot. I killed my share of taliban-how about you coward? Oh yeah that’s right you and obama are on their side.

Feb 27, 2013 1:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@whipsplash said: “I totally support what these corporations are trying to do. However I question why a couple hundred corporations pull more weight with the supreme court than an equal number (or more) of individual citizens.”

Because according to the SCOTUS, money = speech.

Feb 27, 2013 1:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

I am all for letting the LGBT community marry…but I do have one poignant question that I have, logically, never fully resolved:

If homosexuality is truly innate and not a function of society, then it is, by definition, a self-defeating gene in that those individuals cannot reproduce to pass that gene on…

The best I can figure is that enough people suppress it and/or have passed it on through heterosexual partners throughout the ages.

Thoughts?

Feb 27, 2013 1:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fred5407 wrote:

Yah know, I wonder why why corporations or special interest groups should have any voice in this decision. The Supreme Court is to follow the constitution and past legal precidents in any case. What differences do poles make. I thought we were beyond ruling by what the majority thinks.

Feb 27, 2013 1:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JL4 wrote:

@jaham, you’ve never heard of anyone on the down low? Also, lots of homosexuals marry, have families, and then come out of the closet. Tom Cruise may yet prove to be a great example. It’s very safe to say that the gene is passed down through heterosexual reproduction since it’s very much a part of the human gene pool, and homosexual reproduction is a really tricky sticking point.

@bobber1956, I’ve read many of USAPragmatist’s posts and nothing s/he has written suggests cowardice. Intelligence and critical thinking, yes. Cowardice, no.

Feb 27, 2013 2:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

Well it’s a sad reality that our politicians are bought by corporations but I guess I wanted to believe that the Supreme Court was above being bought (even thought I know they’re driven by political affiliation), I guess it’s only natural that they can be bought by the highest bidder.
Or is this more of a problem with a conservative court (“corporations are people too”) than a liberal court?

Feb 27, 2013 2:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse

“If homosexuality is truly innate and not a function of society, then it is, by definition, a self-defeating gene in that those individuals cannot reproduce to pass that gene on…

The best I can figure is that enough people suppress it and/or have passed it on through heterosexual partners throughout the ages.”

This is an excellent question. Homosexuality is found throughout the mammal kingdom. Therefore, the theory above is probably not the case since why would other mammals try to suppress their homosexual urges? They have no societal pressures bearing down upon them. We need the help of geneticists. My layman guess would be that the genes responsible for sexuality are very complex and hence, that is why we see such a broad spectrum of sexuality. Remember that about half of all male humans have had at least one homosexual experience in their lives, especially during younger years when they are still experimenting and exploring.

Feb 27, 2013 2:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LukeCage wrote:

@ldfrmc…Gallop? Interesting….49 states have made the definition of marriage static & not variable when interpreted by minority agendas, fickle cultural trends and political correctness. The majority of americans have spoken. Civil unions or domestic partnerships are the answer.

Feb 27, 2013 2:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
erikdc wrote:

@Jaham

Italian researchers have recently discovered through statistical analysis that the female relatives of gay men have more children than those who bear only heterosexual offspring.

This has led the researchers to conclude the same gene that makes women more fertile also, occasionally, results in some of the offspring being gay. This would explain why gay men continue to appear, despite their reduced fecundity. The gene that is causing male homosexuality also causes increased fertility in heterosexual woman, thereby making it evolutionarily beneficial.

Feb 27, 2013 3:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RandomMoto wrote:

A list of them would have been nice.

Feb 27, 2013 3:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RandomMoto wrote:

@bobber1956. Try visiting 2013 some time.

Feb 27, 2013 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RandomMoto wrote:

WonderProfessor probably has it right; however, it is not absolutely known that it is genetic, only that it is congenital (i.e., inborn).

It may occur whether or not there is a gene to be passed on; it would be reasonable to think that such a gene would disappear fairly quickly if we were merely left alone instead of pressured to conform to heterosexuality and reproduce. That said, plenty of gay men and women have children via surrogacy, so that might slow down the disappearance but not by much. My guess is that it is far more complicated than that, since non-human animals continue to exhibit homosexual behavior even though there is no societal pressure for them reproduce.

Feb 27, 2013 3:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RandomMoto wrote:

For the original question of why corporations have more clout than individuals, the answer is twofold. The first part is reasonable and expected. Corporations are not dissociated entities, they are (usually very large) groups of individuals, larger than most unions even. If you own one share of stock, you are a member of that corporation. Of course, if the corporation does things you don’t like, you are free to sell your share, so there is nothing sinister about it; the corporate management represents your interest with respect to the corporation.

The second part is a bit less palatable. Campaign contributions and lobbying are by far the larger part of corporate political influence. As for whether they are representing their shareholders, see the first part. So corporations may appear to act as giant greedy entities, but their first duty is to their shareholders. Check your pension plan, 401K, 403g, and IRA investments before coming down too hard on them. You may actually be one.

Feb 27, 2013 3:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@jl4 and wonderproffessor….thanks for the responses and I agree with both of you.

Evolution and natural selection just seems to be such a powerful thing that it makes one wonder, going back thousands years or more, how homosexuality has survived…

Feb 27, 2013 3:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JillCitizen wrote:

Interesting that the Equal Rights Ammendment in 1972 could not pass the 35 state muster, only a dozen states have passed gay marriage bills (several up for repeal), and yet…..if it is an inconvenience to a corportation’s HR Dept, it will go before the Supreme Court. Keeps the lawyers employed I guess. As for folks wanting an easy go of life……this comment just cracked me up!
,,,,,,,,,,,,
It’s understandable that corporations want a consistent set of rules for benefits, tax withholding and insurance coverage and want to avoid lawsuits for unfair, unequal treatment. Employees sure do want fairness and consistency,,,,,,,,,
Kinda like all the understanding and consistancy of Obamacare and the current tax code. What a joke! But, follow the money people because life isn’t fair. It’s just life. Try to enjoy it and keep the whining to a low roar.

Feb 27, 2013 3:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dondontcare wrote:

this rediculous! the only people that embrace homosexuals are people with no moral values. i always tolerate their existance but will never embrace their behavior.

Feb 27, 2013 3:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

Corporations are gay people too my friend.

Feb 27, 2013 4:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Goldman sachs and wallstreet That figures two of the most twisted and deranged anti American.

Feb 27, 2013 6:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

RandomMoto
This whole country is about to return to 1861. YOU LOSE!

Feb 27, 2013 8:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

ldfrmc
“Only 24% of adults of marriage-age voted for Prop 8 in California 2008.” NEWS FLASH! California is not America. It is mexican. And a lot of that illegal immigrant criminals. Oh yeah, and gays.

Feb 27, 2013 8:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Persuter wrote:

jaham: Odd that you didn’t respond to erikdc, who gave you a very simple example of evidence showing how the gay gene survives. The key is that whatever genes predispose one to be gay likely have many other effects – if these effects provide more positive benefits than the negative outcome of being gay, then the gene will be a success, particularly since gay people are still perfectly capable of reproducing if their tribe is in need of children.

You see this in many other cases. Take as a simple example the genes that code for sickle cell anemia. Carrying only a single copy of this gene confers a significant resistance to malaria, while carrying both copies of the gene shortens your life expectancy. Because malaria is such a significant killer in Africa, this gene is very common among African communities, particularly since carrying both copies generally doesn’t kill you before you can reproduce.

Feb 28, 2013 3:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
Whipsplash wrote:

Great, bobber’s off his medication again….

Feb 28, 2013 10:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@Persuter…I didn’t see his post at first, sometimes Reuters comment section has a pretty large delay.

Either way, your and erikdc’s posts are very interesting. It does make logical sense about having more “feminine” genes, to use lay terms, as leading to more proliferate offspring.

Feb 28, 2013 1:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.