Discrimination in benefits part II

[CivilRightRebel]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but for an act, benefit, privilege, etc. to become "politically correct" Doesn't it take a rather large group of individuals who stand up for this concept, right, or benefit? Afterward, either a large enough group or the right powered group agree on the matter, therefore making it correct or "politically correct"??

The point I'm trying to make is this. The absolute last thing I'm trying to do is take away the rights or benefits that my company offers to same-sex couples. I’m only looking for one thing and that is equality. But by the courts OWN definition of political correctness they are contradicting themselves by not allowing me the same right or privilege.

What about common law? This pertains to both hetero and homo sexual couples, does it not? Therefore making it equal for all individuals. Then why would my company NOT be in the wrong for giving benefits to those same sex couples that just started living together, giving them instant benefits instead of waiting for common law to kick in?

What if I were to own a company and only offered benefits to Caucasian, heterosexual, non-married couples? I’d put money on the fact I’d be in court faster than someone could spell “lawsuit”.

My apologies if it sounds like I’m debating your reply /advice. I just find it very unfair.

I’m sure an opposing attorney could think of more reasons why I’m a “so called” bigot than I can for my beneficial equality. Therefore, making me wrong.

In your honest opinion do you find my situation to have "legs" or ground in court? Or perhaps I should write my state representative? I greatly appreciate your help and quick responses!

Thanks!

BTW, I've posted my original message below along with your reply.


My 1st post:
I work for a rather large worldwide Corporation. In this Corporation they offer same sex benefits for live-in couples. According to my companies benefit handbook the same sex couple doesn't even need to be married! What's the difference between homosexual live-in couples vs. heterosexual live-in couples!? Isn't this discrimination? Someone please enlighten me!

Your Reply:
Attorney_Replogle

You are so right! It is reverse discrimination. However, that type of discrimination is politically correct and valid in the courts today. And remember, just for asking this question, some people might consider you to be a bigot or a homophobe. Perhaps on the verge of committing a hate crime. Possibly in need of some time in a re-education camp.
------------------
Mark B. Replogle

 

[Attorney_Replogle]

I don't take offense for your excellent questions and analysis. That really is the spirit of learning and traditional legal education. At common law as it has been modified in America, only married couples were entitled to employment benefits flowing from the job of one of the spouses. That is still the law in all states that I am aware of. Second, all states will recognize a common law marriage but not all states allow such marriages to take place in their territory. For example, in California it is legally impossible for a heterosexual couple to begin a common law marriage. Yet California certainly recognizes a common law marriage between a man and a woman that was properly originated in another state.

As far as your first paragraph in this rebuttal goes, you are wrong on just one point. That is; it is not necessary for a majority to fight for and obtain a right. In this case gay people. By various statitics they represent anywhere from 3% to 10% of the population. So by definition they are a minority. Also statiticially they as a group are very wealthy. So, the bottom line is that a minority has obtained and is in the process of obtaining various legally recognized benfits that were not previously bestowed on them.

Is this unfair to an unmarried heterosexual couple? Perhaps. Will writing to a politican amount to any good? Whose to say?

------------------
Mark B. Replogle