Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Until you do, I'm not likely to blindly accept that it exists

Am I correct in that the actual "it" being discussed is opposite-sex unmarried partners getting fewer benefits from their employer that same-sex unmarried partners?

It's true, it happened to me, but I'm not sure at this point that I still have the documentation to prove it.

A few years ago, I was working for Company A and my girlfriend was working for Company B. We each had insurance coverage through our respective employer. Then I got laid off. While my company, A, extended benefits to ALL "domestic partnerships," my girlfriend's company on offered benefits to married couples and "same-sex domestic partners." If my gf had been laid off, she would have been able to sign up with me for health insurance. However, I was unable to sign up for insurance through her employer. Quite annoying, and yes I considered it discrimination, and preferred my former company's way of doing it. However, to address squeakr's question of why isn't this a battle taken up on the basis of discrimination, it's because there's a readily available solution for opposite-sex couples like us. So once my subsidized COBRA expired, we got married by going down to the county courthouse and signing a few pieces of paper. I then was able to sign on with her company's coverage plans.

Kinda like saying that Person A getting an oz of gold and Person B getting an oz of silver is discrimination against the gold-getters because they aren't given any silver. Sure, technically it is, but nobody's going to raise a stink about it.

I MIGHT have the open enrollment paperwork from back then from both companies, to prove the above, but it was several years ago and we did a shredding event last year so I doubt it. So hopefully you'll accept my anecdote at face-value.
 
Am I correct in that the actual "it" being discussed is opposite-sex unmarried partners getting fewer benefits from their employer that same-sex unmarried partners?

Here was the claim ...

The source I have is a friend that worked at Disney, and a few other inside employees that have been denied benefits for their opposite sex partner based upon the fact that they were not married, yet Disney has a well known policy in place that allows same sex partners to receive benefits under their plan. Since they have never been sued to my knowledge, I can't site quotable sources and don't know of anyone suing them based upon this fact. So does this mean that it didn't happen or doesn't exist, as it seems here that the prevailing thought is no verifiable documentation, then it didn't exist.

Here was my response ...

The prevailing thought (at least or me) is that claims of fact need to be backed by evidence.

I'm not going to believe the claim—especially when that claim involves a hot-button political issue—just because someone said it happened.

PRSI has proven time and time again that people get suckered by rumors that they want to believe are true, but in the end are baseless. Without evidence, why shouldn't I believe that this is another case of that?

All I asked for was evidence to back the claim. And my position still stands.

If Disney has this "policy" then it shouldn't be too hard to dig up evidence of it. Yet in all the time since that request, the person making the claim never produced any evidence supporting his claim.

That doesn't mean his claim is false. That means his claim is unproven.

Either he doesn't want to put in the time and effort to find the evidence, or he has put the effort in and come up empty. In either case, no evidence has been brought forward substantiating his claim of such Disney policy.

Does that help explain the thread of conversation?
 
Am I correct in that the actual "it" being discussed is opposite-sex unmarried partners getting fewer benefits from their employer that same-sex unmarried partners?

It's true, it happened to me, but I'm not sure at this point that I still have the documentation to prove it.

A few years ago, I was working for Company A and my girlfriend was working for Company B. We each had insurance coverage through our respective employer. Then I got laid off. While my company, A, extended benefits to ALL "domestic partnerships," my girlfriend's company on offered benefits to married couples and "same-sex domestic partners." If my gf had been laid off, she would have been able to sign up with me for health insurance. However, I was unable to sign up for insurance through her employer. Quite annoying, and yes I considered it discrimination, and preferred my former company's way of doing it. However, to address squeakr's question of why isn't this a battle taken up on the basis of discrimination, it's because there's a readily available solution for opposite-sex couples like us. So once my subsidized COBRA expired, we got married by going down to the county courthouse and signing a few pieces of paper. I then was able to sign on with her company's coverage plans.

Kinda like saying that Person A getting an oz of gold and Person B getting an oz of silver is discrimination against the gold-getters because they aren't given any silver. Sure, technically it is, but nobody's going to raise a stink about it.

I MIGHT have the open enrollment paperwork from back then from both companies, to prove the above, but it was several years ago and we did a shredding event last year so I doubt it. So hopefully you'll accept my anecdote at face-value.

Yeah that was the same thing that my friend reported. To clarify my question was more rhetorical and not really expected to get a "reasoned" answer. I knew exactly why it was not pursued for exactly the reasons you stated, but it seems that like I hypothesized, why is no one quick to jump on that battle. People know that generally the claims of discrimination don't apply in such cases, as people will use excuses that other alternatives apply so it is not "true" discrimination. Guess this denial is just another right that has become a privilege when denied so no discrimination exists. The fact is that close mindedness and denial exists no matter the issue.
 
Here was the claim ...

Here was my response ...

All I asked for was evidence to back the claim.

Good, I understood the "it" properly then. Hopefully my story, while not "evidence" in the form of scans of open enrollment documents, is persuasive.

And my position still stands.

I understand your skepticism, but your position is wrong. I dunno about Disney, but here's the proof of it happening at Lockheed which I just found:
https://hrss.external.lmco.com/hrss/benefits/site/comm/LMHealthWorksPlanSPD.pdf
Go to page 9.

They only offer benefits to spouses and same-sex domestic partners. Not opposite-sex domestic partners.

(I have no interest in getting involved with your meta-argument with squeakr about Disney, proof or the like. :cool: My only intention is to show that yes, in some ways, us opposite-sex domestic partner people are discriminated against in terms of employee benefits sometimes.)
 
All I asked for was evidence to back the claim. And my position still stands.

If Disney has this "policy" then it shouldn't be too hard to dig up evidence of it. Yet in all the time since that request, the person making the claim never produced any evidence supporting his claim.

That doesn't mean his claim is false. That means his claim is unproven.

Either he doesn't want to put in the time and effort to find the evidence, or he has put the effort in and come up empty. In either case, no evidence has been brought forward substantiating his claim of such Disney policy.

Does that help explain the thread of conversation?


As I stated in the original posts, Disney has a well known policy for supporting same sex partners. Here is a statement about it that you wanted: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-07/news/mn-54276_1_partner-benefits

You of course are asking for something I can't provide, which is the proof that these benefits were denied. I have been unable to respond as I have been out and just recently got home, yet just because they have a policy in place against it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Within the above article it states domestic partners are eligible as well, but these people were denied the benefits, no matter what the policy declarations claim. I didn't feel the need to justify my statements, since (as I stated before) no lawsuits were filed you will still claim disbelief as no verifiable proof was presented and that is fine. Just as with other companies, exceptions and violations happen, people are affected and move on. Does this make my claim any less real? No, but without the proof that you request you will believe that it didn't happen.

My job is not to sway your thoughts and change your opinion (as I know that is not usually possible), so I don't think that I have anything to prove or validate. Believe me or not, that is your decision. Several people have been negligently affected within corporate world for less flagrant violations, but when pursuing the suit, have found that it may not be worth their time and effort, especially when dealing with extremely large and powerful companies (think of Jeffrey Wigand). Corporate America has a stranglehold on the laws. They can tie things up in court until the people pursuing the issue have been bankrupted and then win by default. One also must realize that when they open themselves up to the such scrutiny, they also open themselves to being denied further employment or future issues due to their public persona (and dependent they will generally be drug through the mud by the defendant). Once their name is released, they can have a black mark that follows them for life. Most employers would rather hire a lower qualified individual than open themselves to possibly issue and further litigation by hiring a very well qualified muck raker (once again think Jeffrey Wigand, as he benefited nothing and generally committed career suicide).


I have provided my statements that are contrary to your claims and you can decide to believe them or not. I was doing nothing other than what elistan has done, experienced, and documented, and that being that such discriminations do exists and occur whether you want to believe they exist or not. Sometimes we have to just believe things. You have provided no claims to the opposite if mine so how are your views more acceptable than mine. We could do nothing but go around and claim everyone verify there statements, but what would that change??
 
Last edited:
Yeah that was the same thing that my friend reported. To clarify my question was more rhetorical and not really expected to get a "reasoned" answer.

You've been asking some tough questions. The kind that by answering, we might learn something new. And if I can rewind a bit, I'm just crazy enough to try.


This is why these battles are so heated as the group fighting for the rights they believe that are being denied, whether true or not (and this is a general statement I am not speaking to any specific right in this case) they fail to see that the granting of a right and said equality will generally in some way infringe upon the same sort of right for another group!

In the case of all rights and privileges, one set stops where the next begins. A person alone on a desert island has 100% rights for themselves. Add a second person, and the first has fewer. Add a third and the first two have less. But being members of a society, we all agree to create and live by rules to reduce the stepping on of toes. And we periodically reevaluate those rules to see if they need adjustment.


The source I have is a friend that worked at Disney, and a few other inside employees that have been denied benefits for their opposite sex partner based upon the fact that they were not married, yet Disney has a well known policy in place that allows same sex partners to receive benefits under their plan.

If I'm understanding your example: Disney was giving marital benefits to opposite sex spouses. Seeing employees who could not marry, they granted those same marital benefits to presumed same sex spouses. And seeing these illegitimate qualifications, you are asking why other illegitimate spouses (say opposite sex roommates) shouldn't also receive marital benefits.

This goes straight to the question of why agencies are required to record declarations of marriage. Without it, it's to difficult and time consuming and inaccurate for other individuals and firms to judge whether a marriage is legitimate. It doesn't really matter who the particular clearing house is, as long as it's one place everyone can go. And to be clear, I'm using legitimate marriage to describe a long term relationship of such commitment, participation of the state is required to dissolve it.

Back to your question, the answer is that it's an exception. Disney would prefer the certainty of the state telling them when a marriage is legitimate but absent that, is forwarding privileges. Disney is creating a temporary solution in advance of a permanent one. When the new class (same sex couples) is brought into parity with the old one (opposite sex couples), the exception should disappear, along with the inconsistency it created.


I don't disagree with you on this viewpoint, but would like to know why some of the things I am losing, you are labeling as unfair advantages, but when another group are denied some of these same things, they are then re-termed and viewed as rights? Why when one group has them they are deemed as an unfair advantage but become a denied right when others pursue the same things.

Equality is a PITA. As you've shown, even describing it is fraught with confusion and contradiction. The underlying behavior is that everyone wants the ability to do anything they want, whenever they want. Stopping them is either money or society (aka politics). A easier example is language. I have a right to walk into a building and be able to read the signs. I speak English and all of the signs are in English and my right is upheld. Now suppose a group of Spanish only speaking people move into town. They too have a right to walk into the same building and read the same signs. If all the signs are changed from English to Spanish, their gain is my loss. But suppose all the signs are changed to both - they've gained, but have I lost? English is still there, I can still get around. Some will say, however, that the new signs take longer to read and that seeing this language they don't understand, makes them uncomfortable. And they won't be wrong. But it will still be equal.
 
Last edited:
I have no issue or complaint with the best candidate receiving the job. It is when this "positive discrimination" ( how can it not be discrimination when you use the word in defining it, either it is discrimination or it isn't. You don't get to decide based on a specific set of circumstance and who is effected.) is the underlying issue. I thought the idea that we were discussing/ debating is about having a well qualified and equally treated employee pool and not a well diversified one, as those two theories are not mutually inclusive of the other. As for discrimination against men, the US is one of those countries. Men are not always afforded the same leave standards when it comes to child birth, and with more men becoming the primary care taker this should be equal. You could argue that the states and companies are the ones that create the discrepancy, but then wouldn't that be the same argument as it applies to marriage, and the proponents want the Feds to regulate. Also how come men aren't eligible for subsidies such as WIC to help take care of their child in utero, if they are not married to the woman yet the woman is. Since an inequality exists and their lives and the lives of their unborn child are affected this could and should be called discrimination as well. Also if I get divorced unless I can prove my wife to be a dangerous individual or she decides she doesn't want it, she will be given primary custody solely based on the fact that we believe the child is better off with their mother, and this is the case is the majority of the states.

Fair and equal are obviously two different issues. I am tired of hearing that it is "not fair deal with it", but then hearing it should all be equal. Well if it is all equal, then it would therefor also all have to be fair as no favoritism would exist.

Then these are things that fathers' groups in the US need to fight and lobby for. Paternity leave in the UK has changed drastically over the last few years.
Gay rights, black rights, votes for women - they didn't just happen. They involved years and years of people devoting and in some cases losing their lives for their cause. THAT is how you fight discrimination, not complaining about it. I'm all for equal rights for parents. Take a look at this organisation in the UK:
http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/
 
Yeah that was the same thing that my friend reported. To clarify my question was more rhetorical and not really expected to get a "reasoned" answer. I knew exactly why it was not pursued for exactly the reasons you stated, but it seems that like I hypothesized, why is no one quick to jump on that battle.

Rhetorical questions, much like sarcastic statements, don't across very well on Internet forums. Less so, in fact, I'd say, since there are one or more smileys that can be used to denote sarcasm. And it's STILL missed sometimes, even when those smileys are used. In the interest of communication clarity, I find it's best to just explicitly state one's thoughts.

(For what it's worth, yes, discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partners exist, I was subject to it myself, but I'm not sure why you brought it up. Yes, I'd like to see that discrimination eliminated - like with my former employer, where all domestic partners could be covered like spouses, regardless of same- or opposite-sex. But in my opinion, the fact that "close mindedness and denial exists no matter the issue" doesn't justify allowing close mindedness. Rather, it means a constant vigilance against it.)
 
Am I correct in that the actual "it" being discussed is opposite-sex unmarried partners getting fewer benefits from their employer that same-sex unmarried partners?

It's true, it happened to me, but I'm not sure at this point that I still have the documentation to prove it.

A few years ago, I was working for Company A and my girlfriend was working for Company B. We each had insurance coverage through our respective employer. Then I got laid off. While my company, A, extended benefits to ALL "domestic partnerships," my girlfriend's company on offered benefits to married couples and "same-sex domestic partners." If my gf had been laid off, she would have been able to sign up with me for health insurance. However, I was unable to sign up for insurance through her employer. Quite annoying, and yes I considered it discrimination, and preferred my former company's way of doing it. However, to address squeakr's question of why isn't this a battle taken up on the basis of discrimination, it's because there's a readily available solution for opposite-sex couples like us. So once my subsidized COBRA expired, we got married by going down to the county courthouse and signing a few pieces of paper. I then was able to sign on with her company's coverage plans.

Kinda like saying that Person A getting an oz of gold and Person B getting an oz of silver is discrimination against the gold-getters because they aren't given any silver. Sure, technically it is, but nobody's going to raise a stink about it.

I MIGHT have the open enrollment paperwork from back then from both companies, to prove the above, but it was several years ago and we did a shredding event last year so I doubt it. So hopefully you'll accept my anecdote at face-value.

Probably because same sex marriage wasn't an option. Once it is I certainly hope that this company's policies are changed.
 
Probably because same sex marriage wasn't an option. Once it is I certainly hope that this company's policies are changed.

I need to look closer at the Lockheed policy—and I don't have the time right now.

But in a nutshell I think you're right. They're saying in essence: these benefits open to Population A are not available to Population B. So as a company, we'll offer to Population B benefits that are similar in order to even the playing field of both populations.

Then what we have is Population A claiming they're being discriminated against because they don't get their original benefits and the benefits now available to Population B.

It is an eye roller, for sure.
 
I am trying to generally understand how you can claim if someone has had their "rights" denied that they are discriminated against, but if someone else has rights removed in the process of granting another their rights, the group that have had their rights infringed upon, haven't really been "affected" as they weren't really rights in the first place but privileges.

Please provide a specific example of what you are referring to. The answer that comes to mind is that one of the groups in question did not have a right to step on someone else.
 
I need to look closer at the Lockheed policy—and I don't have the time right now.

But in a nutshell I think you're right. They're saying in essence: these benefits open to Population A are not available to Population B. So as a company, we'll offer to Population B benefits that are similar in order to even the playing field of both populations.

Then what we have is Population A claiming they're being discriminated against because they don't get their original benefits and the benefits now available to Population B.

It is an eye roller, for sure.

Almost, but not quite. There are actually THREE populations.

Population A: Same-sex couples who are married.
Population B: Opposite-sex couples who want to get married.
Population C: Same-sex couples who do not want to get married.

It's actually Population C that's getting discriminated against in your scenario. I was a member of Population C, and was unable to qualify for benefits available to A and B. Fortunately, the fix was rather easy - become a member of A. Not ideal, but it worked.

----------

My position has been that claims of fact require evidence.

How is that position wrong?

Ah, sorry, I thought your position was that squeakr's claim was wrong.
 
Then these are things that fathers' groups in the US need to fight and lobby for. Paternity leave in the UK has changed drastically over the last few years.
Gay rights, black rights, votes for women - they didn't just happen. They involved years and years of people devoting and in some cases losing their lives for their cause. THAT is how you fight discrimination, not complaining about it. I'm all for equal rights for parents. Take a look at this organisation in the UK:
http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/


I agree with this, but how do you make a change when no matter the claims you make or the fight you put up, you are denied an audience. When I was growing up, there were several noted cases brought into the court system that were denied an audience, as the claims were the party had no standing to sue as discrimination didn't happen to a white male. These cases were battles against quotas. I can still see that the ideal stands today and no one is willing to change to face it. The claim was made that "positive discrimination" was not discrimination. It is also a generally held ideal that the white male is the majority that all discriminations are measured and based against. How can a minority group be the majority? If groups were to have a party that incorporated the white race as a name within the title they are immediately viewed as a possibly hate group and investigated as such. I distress as this is getting off topic, but the fact is that fairness doesn't happen and generally is not going to happen as long as the glaring differences exist. Why should one have to fight for something when others are just given it? The thing is an oppressed group won't band with another just because it is just a right, they will instead, just turn their nose up and say, well you will need to fight your own battle. So much for we are all created equal. If that was the case, all would fight together, instead of remain divided as the issues isn't their cup of tea.
 
Almost, but not quite. There are actually THREE populations.

Population A: Same-sex couples who are married.
Population B: Opposite-sex couples who want to get married.
Population C: Same-sex couples who do not want to get married.

It's actually Population C that's getting discriminated against in your scenario. I was a member of Population C, and was unable to qualify for benefits available to A and B. Fortunately, the fix was rather easy - become a member of A. Not ideal, but it worked.

----------



Ah, sorry, I thought your position was that squeakr's claim was wrong.

Not every same sex couple who wants to be married can get married, it depends on what state they're in. -_-
 
How are men discriminated against then? Obviously excluding child access as I mentioned in my post.

Are you joking? Men are ubiquitously discriminated against these days.

(1) Child access, yes. But also alimony and the splitting of property (e.g. the house).

(2) He is pretty much presumed the primary aggressor in any physical altercation between a woman and a man.

(3) Study after study has shown that for equivalent crimes, men receive stricter and longer sentences. They're also more likely to receive a conviction when evidence is more or less identical. Prison facilities for women are more comfortable and provide more social services than those serving men.

(4) Social services in general are much less available for men. I've read a statistic that although men pay 75% of taxes, they are recipients of only about 35% of social services.

(5) When Howard Dean was governor in Vermont he founded what was then the only healthcare program for people in Vermont for those above the poverty line called "Ladies First." This kind of crap is everywhere. Need I say more?

(6) The draft.

(7) Being the first to be shoved up to the front line to get shot at in time of war whereas women are send there only if they volunteer, if at all.

(8) Try getting a job at restaurant as a guy. Ten bucks says you'll be in the back slaving over a hot stove rather than out front serving the customers. This is not a coincidence.

(9) Try getting a job in a day care facility or as a nurse as a guy. Good luck! Tell a lawyer you're being discriminated against. He doesn't give a damn.

(10) If you are working in an office and you are male, you are often required to wear a noose around your neck (a tie) whereas the woman sitting next to you wears what amounts to a slightly fancy tee shirt. The government will come to any woman's aid on such matters if the complain or threaten lawsuits, but if you are a guy with basically the same problem, presumably there is nothing that needs to be done about it.

(11) Try wearing false eyelashes to work if you are a guy. What about that women with her hair cut short, and the shirt that looks like a men's shirt? She gets a free pass.

(12) Being the butt of every bad joke about how men are stereotypically this or that, whereas if a guy makes a joke about women, he risks losing his job.

(13) Two people are drunk and have sexual relations. In some jurisdictions the consent is not considered valid and the sexual relations is considered a form of sexual assault, but it is always assumed that the woman's consent is not valid, whereas the man's consent is. Which is bull.

That's really just the tip of the iceberg.

Basically, the insidious problem here is chivalry.

It is a bunch of horsecr*p and unfortunately codified in law.

Neither liberals or conservatives are particularly friendly on any of these issues, because they both buy into dumb *****, whatever gets them elected. So basically, they can go ***** themselves.
 
Are you joking? Men are ubiquitously discriminated against these days.

(1) Child access, yes. But also alimony and the splitting of property (e.g. the house).

(2) He is pretty much presumed the primary aggressor in any physical altercation between a woman and a man.

(3) Study after study has shown that for equivalent crimes, men receive stricter and longer sentences. They're also more likely to receive a conviction when evidence is more or less identical. Prison facilities for women are more comfortable and provide more social services than those serving men.

(4) Social services in general are much less available for men. I've read a statistic that although men pay 75% of taxes, they are recipients of only about 35% of social services.

(5) When Howard Dean was governor in Vermont he founded what was then the only healthcare program for people in Vermont for those above the poverty line called "Ladies First." This kind of crap is everywhere. Need I say more?

(6) The draft.

(7) Being the first to be shoved up to the front line to get shot at in time of war whereas women are send there only if they volunteer, if at all.

(8) Try getting a job at restaurant as a guy. Ten bucks says you'll be in the back slaving over a hot stove rather than out front serving the customers. This is not a coincidence.

(9) Try getting a job in a day care facility or as a nurse as a guy. Good luck! Tell a lawyer you're being discriminated against. He doesn't give a damn.

(10) If you are working in an office and you are male, you are often required to wear a noose around your neck (a tie) whereas the woman sitting next to you wears what amounts to a slightly fancy tee shirt. The government will come to any woman's aid on such matters if the complain or threaten lawsuits, but if you are a guy with basically the same problem, presumably there is nothing that needs to be done about it.

(11) Try wearing false eyelashes to work if you are a guy. What about that women with her hair cut short, and the shirt that looks like a men's shirt? She gets a free pass.

(12) Being the butt of every bad joke about how men are stereotypically this or that, whereas if a guy makes a joke about women, he risks losing his job.

(13) Two people are drunk and have sexual relations. In some jurisdictions the consent is not considered valid and the sexual relations is considered a form of sexual assault, but it is always assumed that the woman's consent is not valid, whereas the man's consent is.

That's really just the tip of the iceberg.

Basically, the insidious problem here is chivalry.

It is a bunch of horsecr*p and unfortunately codified in law.

Neither liberals or conservatives are particularly friendly on any of these issues, because they both buy into dumb *****, whatever gets them elected. So basically, they can go ***** themselves.

I didn't know how rough I had it as a guy until you pointed it out to me.

Thank you.

Edit: Oh, and some of that is blatantly wrong.
 
So you're saying that the house is holding bills hostage because they aren't getting something they want. How disgusting.
False. The Senate is. Starting with the annual budget which we have not had for over 4 years!! We have been operating on CR's, hence the brinkmanship. That goes away the moment the Senate passes a budget bill, with 51 or more votes, and sends it for reconciliation with the House versions that have been passed each and every year. Since a budget at all is a "non-partisan" issue, so are my comments identifying the source of the problem.
 
You say that homosexuality is neither dysfunctional, nor defective, but a sexual act that does not culiminate in a chance for procreation is a failure from an evolutionary perspective, is it not? What is the benefit?

Straight people also commit sexual acts that don't lead to procreation, so I don't see the validity of that argument. If homosexuality was a "failure" from an evolutionary perspective, the genes that caused it would have been wiped out. An explanation for the continued existence of homosexual genes in modern society is an apparent genetic link between homosexuality and increased female reproductive value. The genetic causes of homosexuality are believed to be carried on the X chromosome, and according to research by the University of Padova, maternal relatives of homosexual men tend to be more attractive and have more children with fewer complications. There is an apparent genetic link between the attractiveness of women to men and the attraction of men to men.

I have never understood the "other species" arguement. We're talking about humans; unless you are equating the human species with other, primitive life forms than what point are you making?

Human beings are animals, a species of African great apes. The point is that homosexuality is a naturally occurring form of sexual diversity. A line drawn between humans and other animals suggests a religious component in your position. Would that be a correct assumption?
 
False. The Senate is. Starting with the annual budget which we have not had for over 4 years!! We have been operating on CR's, hence the brinkmanship. That goes away the moment the Senate passes a budget bill, with 51 or more votes, and sends it for reconciliation with the House versions that have been passed each and every year. Since a budget at all is a "non-partisan" issue, so are my comments identifying the source of the problem.


Actually, the Senate passed a budget this year in March, its first in four years. The House passed one also. Efforts to go to conference were blocked. 19 times. By Republicans.


For instance, through a Senate Democratic aide, here are all the times since this spring Senate Democrats tried to negotiate with Republicans by sending their budget to a bicameral conference committee. Every time, Republicans blocked the move:

1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.

2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.

3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.

6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.

7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.

8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.

10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.

11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.

13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.

14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.

15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.

16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.

17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.

18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.

19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/cong...-tried-to-negotiate-with-republicans-20131007
 
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked. (etc).
While that is true, it is also true that it was a request for "unanimous consent", not a request for either "cloture" or a "vote on the record". In the rules process details totally matter. This is total political posturing by both parties, but the fact is no budget has been passed for over 4 years. Whatever the excuse. A budget or a vote on the budget only takes 51 votes. There are 55 Democrats in the Senate.

We know it's not an anomaly because the 70 or so jobs bills that originated in the House, where bills are supposed to originate, were not taken up in the Senate at all, much less voted on and reconciled.

We also know to a certainty that when the D had a majority in the House and Senate and a President, things happened. 5 minutes after the Republicans took back the house the Senate has dragged their feet 100% ever since and the President has blamed "Congress" (which includes the D Senate!), and blamed Republicans in the same speeches he said "if you like your health insurance you can keep it."


Rocketman
 
Last edited:
Are you joking? Men are ubiquitously discriminated against these days.

(1) Child access, yes. But also alimony and the splitting of property (e.g. the house).

(2) He is pretty much presumed the primary aggressor in any physical altercation between a woman and a man.

(3) Study after study has shown that for equivalent crimes, men receive stricter and longer sentences. They're also more likely to receive a conviction when evidence is more or less identical. Prison facilities for women are more comfortable and provide more social services than those serving men.

(4) Social services in general are much less available for men. I've read a statistic that although men pay 75% of taxes, they are recipients of only about 35% of social services.

(5) When Howard Dean was governor in Vermont he founded what was then the only healthcare program for people in Vermont for those above the poverty line called "Ladies First." This kind of crap is everywhere. Need I say more?

(6) The draft.

(7) Being the first to be shoved up to the front line to get shot at in time of war whereas women are send there only if they volunteer, if at all.

(8) Try getting a job at restaurant as a guy. Ten bucks says you'll be in the back slaving over a hot stove rather than out front serving the customers. This is not a coincidence.

(9) Try getting a job in a day care facility or as a nurse as a guy. Good luck! Tell a lawyer you're being discriminated against. He doesn't give a damn.

(10) If you are working in an office and you are male, you are often required to wear a noose around your neck (a tie) whereas the woman sitting next to you wears what amounts to a slightly fancy tee shirt. The government will come to any woman's aid on such matters if the complain or threaten lawsuits, but if you are a guy with basically the same problem, presumably there is nothing that needs to be done about it.

(11) Try wearing false eyelashes to work if you are a guy. What about that women with her hair cut short, and the shirt that looks like a men's shirt? She gets a free pass.

(12) Being the butt of every bad joke about how men are stereotypically this or that, whereas if a guy makes a joke about women, he risks losing his job.

(13) Two people are drunk and have sexual relations. In some jurisdictions the consent is not considered valid and the sexual relations is considered a form of sexual assault, but it is always assumed that the woman's consent is not valid, whereas the man's consent is. Which is bull.

That's really just the tip of the iceberg.

Basically, the insidious problem here is chivalry.

It is a bunch of horsecr*p and unfortunately codified in law.

Neither liberals or conservatives are particularly friendly on any of these issues, because they both buy into dumb *****, whatever gets them elected. So basically, they can go ***** themselves.

WOW. :eek:

I was going to say that you had a chip on your shoulder. ;)

But in your case you have WHOLE BLOCK.:D
 
I agree with this, but how do you make a change when no matter the claims you make or the fight you put up, you are denied an audience. When I was growing up, there were several noted cases brought into the court system that were denied an audience, as the claims were the party had no standing to sue as discrimination didn't happen to a white male.

One place to affect change is via the courts, challenging laws. Another place is via the legislature, writing them. Granted, there aren't many laws of any kind getting past just now, but at some point some it's got to start functioning again. And when it does, there are quite a few men in the country who vote.
 
Are you joking? Men are ubiquitously discriminated against these days.

(1) Child access, yes. But also alimony and the splitting of property (e.g. the house).

(2) He is pretty much presumed the primary aggressor in any physical altercation between a woman and a man.

(3) Study after study has shown that for equivalent crimes, men receive stricter and longer sentences. They're also more likely to receive a conviction when evidence is more or less identical. Prison facilities for women are more comfortable and provide more social services than those serving men.

(4) Social services in general are much less available for men. I've read a statistic that although men pay 75% of taxes, they are recipients of only about 35% of social services.

(5) When Howard Dean was governor in Vermont he founded what was then the only healthcare program for people in Vermont for those above the poverty line called "Ladies First." This kind of crap is everywhere. Need I say more?

(6) The draft.

(7) Being the first to be shoved up to the front line to get shot at in time of war whereas women are send there only if they volunteer, if at all.

(8) Try getting a job at restaurant as a guy. Ten bucks says you'll be in the back slaving over a hot stove rather than out front serving the customers. This is not a coincidence.

(9) Try getting a job in a day care facility or as a nurse as a guy. Good luck! Tell a lawyer you're being discriminated against. He doesn't give a damn.

(10) If you are working in an office and you are male, you are often required to wear a noose around your neck (a tie) whereas the woman sitting next to you wears what amounts to a slightly fancy tee shirt. The government will come to any woman's aid on such matters if the complain or threaten lawsuits, but if you are a guy with basically the same problem, presumably there is nothing that needs to be done about it.

(11) Try wearing false eyelashes to work if you are a guy. What about that women with her hair cut short, and the shirt that looks like a men's shirt? She gets a free pass.

(12) Being the butt of every bad joke about how men are stereotypically this or that, whereas if a guy makes a joke about women, he risks losing his job.

(13) Two people are drunk and have sexual relations. In some jurisdictions the consent is not considered valid and the sexual relations is considered a form of sexual assault, but it is always assumed that the woman's consent is not valid, whereas the man's consent is. Which is bull.

That's really just the tip of the iceberg.

Basically, the insidious problem here is chivalry.

It is a bunch of horsecr*p and unfortunately codified in law.

Neither liberals or conservatives are particularly friendly on any of these issues, because they both buy into dumb *****, whatever gets them elected. So basically, they can go ***** themselves.

1. Going to agree with, but again, that's the patriarchal system in place. Where everyday boys are taught to be tough, and girls are taught to be the caregivers. Granted in many first world nations, that's changed quite a bit in the past 40 years (look to Scandinavia for the biggest changes).

2. Statistically, he is generally the aggressor in domestic violence. Sadly, again the patriarchal element of society shames men for being "weak".

3. This is kinda true, but mostly false. Women have a statistical higher conviction rate on things that men generally get a walk on, the biggest being drug trafficking, and strangely, child abuse. Women are more likely to see prison time over child abuse than men.

4. Would like to see said breakdown, as the vast majority of government aid goes to farmers and corporations. Which, generally, are and run by white men.

5. Going to Vermont's medical pages, all I can find referring to "Ladies First" is referring to a program to get cardiovascular healthcare to poor women. Fun bit of trivia, cardiovascular care for women is generally ignored by the public, and many women don't realize the signs of a heart attack are different for us, than for men.

6. Again, the patriarchy. The draft is unnecessary in this day and age, and should be dumped.

7. Women are trying to get into combat positions, but men fight it, claiming women are incapable of battle/combat piloting/etc.

8. As a woman who's worked at many restaurants in her life, you're full of **** on this one. If you have the skill to be wait staff, you're going to be put out to the public. I see it every day, from fast food to nice restaurants, there are just as many men wait staffing as women. The opposite is more true in the back, as you leave fast food, it's actually harder for a woman to become a head chef than a man. Women like Anne Burrell and Cat Cora have to work harder than the Mario Batali's of the world.

9. Again, no. Men just don't enter the field. Look at your average male nurse in the US, they're either foreign-born nursing grads getting experience to take home (largely African communities) or guys from the armed services. Look at a nursing school's graduating class, American men are again, told by their peers that only "fags" go into nursing.

10. Awww, you have to wear a tie? Wear high heels for 8 hours a day. And we STILL get paid less.

11. This is the issues facing transgendered people, right here. This is why we need ENDA.

12. Eh, going to have to agree on this. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing "the retarded guy" stereotype in TV, movies, commercials. Then again... I hate seeing stereotypes.

13. Going to have to call you a douche on this one. If a person is drunk, they are unable to give informed consent, period. This works both ways as well, but again, men have screwed themselves into believing that men can't be raped.

So at the end of the day, you know who's fault it is, yours. Straight, white men have ****ed with everyone else for so long, they've moved onto their own.

Oh and at the end of this, Straight White Men still aren't discriminated against.

Come back to me when you get paid less for the same work, or you're fired for being married to a woman, or you're blamed for your own sexual assault, or when an entire political party lives to make your lives even easier than it is right now.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.