Comments on: The Economics of Equality http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/ Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:47:01 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: neilemac http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-9348 neilemac Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:21:06 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/#comment-9348 Hi T, it's been an age since I left comment, have been so busy actively striving to express my views on my own blog domain that I found little time to surf elsewhere. However, I've recently subscribed to your blog and am elated to find you once more part of my daily mail. I see you're still 'hard at it' as we 'canucker' tend to say when one is absorbed in his convictions. That said, as you know I live above your soon to be 'walled-off' nation ironically during a time when we strive to break down barriers and encourage legislation that delivers rights to all married persons, irregardless of their sexual orientation. Over a year ago, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada" rel="nofollow">Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada</a> but with the present Conservative Harper government, a revived kaffufle is peering its unwelcome head. <a href="http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid38009.asp" rel="nofollow">Canadian government deciding whether to reopen same-sex marriage debate</a>. Here's a potent quote from the above linked article which should be read and understood by everyone involved in the debate. I'm sure Parker will attest to this: “Opponents of equal marriage seem to base their arguments on the false assumption that excluding same-sex couples from marriage would prevent them from having or raising children,'' said Eugenia Moreno, executive director of the Canadian Association of Social Workers. ''In fact, same-sex couples do have and raise children, and excluding them from marriage would only harm these children.'' Thanks for your vidaliant posts T, you're a potent voice for all of us struggling through this dilemma facing our community. Hugs to you and your loving family. Namasté neil Hi T, it’s been an age since I left comment, have been so busy actively striving to express my views on my own blog domain that I found little time to surf elsewhere. However, I’ve recently subscribed to your blog and am elated to find you once more part of my daily mail. I see you’re still ‘hard at it’ as we ‘canucker’ tend to say when one is absorbed in his convictions.

That said, as you know I live above your soon to be ‘walled-off’ nation ironically during a time when we strive to break down barriers and encourage legislation that delivers rights to all married persons, irregardless of their sexual orientation.

Over a year ago, Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada but with the present Conservative Harper government, a revived kaffufle is peering its unwelcome head.
Canadian government deciding whether to reopen same-sex marriage debate.

Here’s a potent quote from the above linked article which should be read and understood by everyone involved in the debate. I’m sure Parker will attest to this:

“Opponents of equal marriage seem to base their arguments on the false assumption that excluding same-sex couples from marriage would prevent them from having or raising children,” said Eugenia Moreno, executive director of the Canadian Association of Social Workers. ”In fact, same-sex couples do have and raise children, and excluding them from marriage would only harm these children.”

Thanks for your vidaliant posts T, you’re a potent voice for all of us struggling through this dilemma facing our community. Hugs to you and your loving family.

Namasté
neil

]]> By: Lesley547 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-9333 Lesley547 Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:07:31 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/#comment-9333 Take a look at Section VIII of the new Pension Protection Act of 2006, signed by Bush in August. There are two provisions that make it a little easier for gays (I'm sure, unintentionally) with respect to non-spousal beneficiaries now having the right to roll over IRAs and also to dip into them prematurely in the event of a family emergency. Take a look at Section VIII of the new Pension Protection Act of 2006, signed by Bush in August. There are two provisions that make it a little easier for gays (I’m sure, unintentionally) with respect to non-spousal beneficiaries now having the right to roll over IRAs and also to dip into them prematurely in the event of a family emergency.

]]> By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-9314 Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:40:00 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/#comment-9314 <strong> N.J. Ruling Mandates Rights for Gay Unions...</strong> NEWARK, Oct. 25 -- The New Jersey Supreme Court left the door ajar for the approval of same-sex mar... N.J. Ruling Mandates Rights for Gay Unions…

NEWARK, Oct. 25 — The New Jersey Supreme Court left the door ajar for the approval of same-sex mar…

]]> By: Dana http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-9282 Dana Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:02:29 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/#comment-9282 One additional straight-only benefit related to retirement savings: As a stay-at-home parent with no income, I cannot contribute to an IRA as I could if I had a working, opposite-sex spouse. The federal government sees me as single, having no legal household income, and therefore prevents me from contributing to an IRA. Small change compared to many of the estate issues you mention, but compounded over many years, it adds up. One additional straight-only benefit related to retirement savings: As a stay-at-home parent with no income, I cannot contribute to an IRA as I could if I had a working, opposite-sex spouse. The federal government sees me as single, having no legal household income, and therefore prevents me from contributing to an IRA. Small change compared to many of the estate issues you mention, but compounded over many years, it adds up.

]]> By: SteveS http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/comment-page-1/#comment-9275 SteveS Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:05:08 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2006/10/26/the-economics-of-equality/#comment-9275 Two links you may already have, but that I would point out, just in case, because they bolster what you cover. From here: http://www.iglss.org/ There are two headlines/articles worth reading. New IGLSS/HRC Report Shows Little Impact on Business Costs if Same-Sex Couples Are Allowed to Marry and Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry Would Save the Federal Government Nearly $1 Billion Per Year also, from time magazine, an article to go with your previous post about the New Jersey ruling: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1550838-1,00.html A Separate But Equal Ruling for Gay Marriage Two links you may already have, but that I would point out, just in case, because they bolster what you cover.

From here:
http://www.iglss.org/

There are two headlines/articles worth reading.

New IGLSS/HRC Report Shows Little Impact on Business Costs if Same-Sex Couples Are Allowed to Marry
and
Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry Would Save the Federal Government Nearly $1 Billion Per Year

also, from time magazine, an article to go with your previous post about the New Jersey ruling:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1550838-1,00.html
A Separate But Equal Ruling for Gay Marriage

]]>