The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Folly in 50 States and the World / Folly in California


Subject:  Re: Our Lame Duck Date:  10/17/2003  8:17 PM
Author:  ortman Number:  8628 of 12907

After laboring through this thread and the varied conversations that have evolved from it (whether same-sex marriages [or polygamy] produce maladjusted children

Sorry. I take partial blame. :(

What surprises me, with the recent tendency of self-professed Libertarians revealing themselves (myself included), is that no one thought to present another position:
C) the legislation is bad 'cause the older bit of legislation that requires companies to offer those kind of benefits to anybody (married or single) is itself bad 'cause it's none of the state's business what benefits a company offers to the labor market as a whole to attempt to attract and retain employees.

Is there current legislation making benefits mandatory? I didn't think there was, and that this legislation was to make it so that when you did offer benefits, you had to offer them to hetero and homo couples.

How about instead of adding legislation either way (Prop 22 disallowing same-sex marriages, or this new one which is, IMO a workaround passed 'cause Prop 22 failed), we <gasp> reduce legislation and let companies offer whatever level of benefits they wish to whichever classes of people they wish (married or single, gay or straight) and let the labor market sort out which policies are effective and successful...

Good point.

But then, what if company X decides to not give benefits to certain racial groups? Isn't this somewhat similar to employers deciding whether or not they want to extend benefits to same sex couples? Or should legislation be there to enforce equal treatment?

Also, this is a patch for Prop 22. That in itself makes the legislation suspect - even though I agree with the intent of the bill.

Copyright 1996-2019 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us