Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!wjh12!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!rick From: rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Job Rights For Gays (Good Reading!) Message-ID: <498@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 18:20:08 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.498 Posted: Thu Nov 29 18:20:08 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 05:47:09 EST References: <2089@ncrcae.UUCP> Reply-To: rick@uwmacc.UUCP (Rick Keir) Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 42 Summary: [ This bug does not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference ] < Very long original article, not reproduced here > The 1st case mentioned in this article is that of David Brinkin, who was unable to take leave following the death of his male lover (nor for his lover's funeral). The reason (as stated in the original posting) is that "lovers" are not on the list of people for whose funerals you may be granted compassionate leave, under the terms of the agreement between his union and his employer. ASSUMING that this is the correct interpretation (i.e., that he would have been denied leave whether his lover was male or female), this is not primarily a gay rights issue. In general, I think it is reasonable to give a different set of rights under the law to married vs. unmarried people. (Consider the idea of palimony to have been flamed: FLAME!!!. There.) Later in the article, AT&T is mentioned; their position is summarized as if the legislature recognizes someone as a legal spouse, they will grant the usual benefits without regard to spouses being motos or motss. This seems reasonable enough. HOWEVER, it is not possible to dismiss this as a gay rights issue entirely, since even if it is possible for a gay couple to marry (often not legal) there are often considerable social costs to marriage. THEREFORE, a question: can someone think of a reasonable legality (need not be actually legal in all states, just a form that could be adopted) to let a gay couple apply for legal recognition of their union? This would mean accepting the RESPONSIBILITIES for one's partner (possibility of alimony and all the rest) as well as deriving the various benefits (family health plans at work, for example). Besides marriage, that is. (How about adopting each other?) -- "But Dinsdale...Dinsdale usedsarcasm!" we all know where this quote came from, don't we? Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick