Bush signs "gay rights" bill

[Matt Collins]

Bush signing of the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 into law on Dec. 23. Andy Birkey over at the Minnesota Independent says we should think of it as “a Christmas present for gay and lesbian couples.”

You’ll want to read Birkey’s post as he’s got some nice quotes from Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese explaining why gay and lesbian couples have a tougher time planning for retirement under current federal law.


So Bush takes a stance to require that businesses roll over retirement benefits to a same-sex partner in the event of the employee’s death.




SOURCE:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/13571/george-w-bush-gay-rights-champion

 

[Matt Collins]

1 - unconstitutional.
2 - rights belong to individuals, not groups.
3 - FAIL

 

[heavenlyboy34]

1 - unconstitutional.
2 - rights belong to individuals, not groups.
3 - FAIL

Bush years=FAIL. Thanks for the post, sir.

 

[Freedom 4 all]

Wow, that was totally unexpected. It seems as though Bush's life goal is to have a 0% approval rating. He's already alienated every single group except a select few extremely gullible socially conservative Christians and now he's sticking the middle finger even to them. Chuck Baldwin must be exploding right now.

 

[nobody's_hero]

This is unconstitutional, as much as nearly every other federal-level act regarding employee-employer relations.

But, from this very brief snippet of a report, it seems like all that has been done is to allow LGBT couples the same benefits as married couples without calling into consideration the issue of marriage.

It seems like the compromise that people would be looking for.

But, mostly, I oppose it because of reason #1.

I'd introduce reason #4, though, and that is that this bill is nothing more than a publicity stunt for GW's legacy polishing.

EDIT: I realize that the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA) is probably a 300+ page bill that is filled with all sorts of related and totally unrelated pork. That might be reason #5 to oppose this bill, I wouldn't know until I had a chance to glance at it.

 

[torchbearer]

I don't like the idea of the government give "rights", which then just makes them privileges that can be taken away.
Our population needs to wake up.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

i don't like the idea of the government give "rights", which then just makes them privileges that can be taken away.
Our population needs to wake up.

qft!

 

[The_Orlonater]

I don't like the idea of the government give "rights", which then just makes them privileges that can be taken away.
Our population needs to wake up.

Really, let individuals decide what they want to do. I'm tired of this legal and illegal game.

Starting a gay church would create some nice business opportunity

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Ex Post Facto]

Government has no right dictating how an employer is to pay benefits. I do think the government has a right for a quid pro quo opportunity, offering an option to businesses in exchange for them to perform a certain act for just compensation. The rule of consideration in contracts should apply here.

 

[asimplegirl]

Well, I have not liked many of the decisions Bush has made since his years as POTUS, but I can see that this came with good intentions.

While I dislike the government telling private businesses what to do with their employees, I am happy that gay people get the same rights as straight people. The next of kin usually get your benefits, and because the homosexuals in this country cannot marry they will not be next of kin, but if they are in a committed relationship, they are fully deserving of the same rights as anyone else is of their SO.

So, I don't think it's the GREATEST idea, but I do think it is a step in the right direction, especially for republicans. I think he may have had a realization, or may be trying to reach out and show he isn't as cold and closed minded as people think him to be. I think it is a meaningful gesture if anything else.

 

[hypnagogue]

Well, I have not liked many of the decisions Bush has made since his years as POTUS, but I can see that this came with good intentions.

Agreed. Even if it wasn't handled at the federal level, a law prohibiting retirement/financial discrimination based on sexual preference could be a good thing.

 

[Matt Collins]

Well, I have not liked many of the decisions Bush has made since his years as POTUS, but I can see that this came with good intentions.

As my mother always says "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

But really, "good intentions" is NOT the threshold to judge whether a law should be enacted or not. Please don't fall into that trap.

While I dislike the government telling private businesses what to do with their employees, I am happy that gay people get the same rights as straight people.

Then they should work for employers who care about that sort of thing. Let the free market decide, not the government.

The next of kin usually get your benefits, and because the homosexuals in this country cannot marry they will not be next of kin, but if they are in a committed relationship, they are fully deserving of the same rights as anyone else is of their SO.

This is why government needs to be out of marriage completely. Marriage is a private contract and the idea that the government must grant "permission" for two people to get married is absurd.

 

[asimplegirl]

This is why government needs to be out of marriage completely. Marriage is a private contract and the idea that the government must grant "permission" for two people to get married is absurd.
I agree with this.

But, while this is not the case, this is a good step towards it. Maybe it will enrage the right so much that they will push for it to be given to churches...most aren't that smart, though.

I just think that you guys sit and bash Bush for being closed minded and only caring about his own opinions...yet while he is obviously against homosexuality, he is reaching out...showing a little understanding for once. The guy can't win for losing.

I am not saying it is right, just that, well, it was a good move on his part, I would've expected him to make a law that made it illegal to give to the gay SOs of employees.

I sure alot would have... I am sorry I cannot fault him for this.

 

[Matt Collins]

I am sorry I cannot fault him for this.

Have you ever read the damn constitution?!?!?

The President is NOT AUTHORIZED (nor is the Congress) to pass legislation about marriage, workplace laws, pensions, retirement accounts, etc..

sheesh... you need to read a few things on here before you spout off ignorant opinions.




​

 

[asimplegirl]

Until you can understand that I said I did not agree with it, don't talk to me.

There is no reason for you to scream at me.

BTW, that's be damned, not damn in that sentence.

 

[xd9fan]

great more dipship group rights.

America is de-evoling into groups fighting other groups for central power love. While Individual liberty gets killed in the process.

Good job Bush

 

[LibertyEagle]

The President is NOT AUTHORIZED (nor is the Congress) to pass legislation about marriage, workplace laws, pensions, retirement accounts, etc..

sheesh... you need to read a few things on here before you spout off ignorant opinions.

Matt, I agree with you about the President not being authorized to do this, but please do your best to keep the discussion civil.

 

[LibertyEagle]

This is why government needs to be out of marriage completely. Marriage is a private contract and the idea that the government must grant "permission" for two people to get married is absurd.
I agree with this.

But, while this is not the case, this is a good step towards it. Maybe it will enrage the right so much that they will push for it to be given to churches...most aren't that smart, though.

I just think that you guys sit and bash Bush for being closed minded and only caring about his own opinions...yet while he is obviously against homosexuality, he is reaching out...showing a little understanding for once. The guy can't win for losing.

I am not saying it is right, just that, well, it was a good move on his part, I would've expected him to make a law that made it illegal to give to the gay SOs of employees.

I sure alot would have... I am sorry I cannot fault him for this.

That's all nice and fine, but the government has no constitutional right to dictate to private companies. There are going to be a few things that they do that we kinda like, but if we accept when they violate the Constitution in those instances, we don't have much standing to criticize when they violate the Constitution to do things that we do not like.

 

[asimplegirl]

Yes, and I agree with that.

I was just saying that some fuss because they claim he is so closed minded and such and then he does this, and well, seems like the guy is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't...that's all.