May 12, 2004

REACTIONARIES OPPOSE GAY RIGHTS

Turns out brotherhood only goes so far:

A Boston labor union representing some 6,000 members has amended its benefit plans to exclude gay married couples from receiving health and pension benefits, evoking fear in some labor unions in Massachusetts that the move will set a dangerous precedent for other unions and employers throughout the state.

Anticipating the legalization of same-sex marriage inMassachusetts next week, trustees and administrators of the benefit plans of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103 issued a clarification of the phrase "dependent spouse" to mean "a person of the opposite sex." The clarification was announced in a letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, sent Friday to union members throughout Eastern Massachusetts.

The IBEW endorses John Kerry, who in November described the equal provision of benefits to same-sex partners as long over due. Kerry will now disavow the unionís support. Of course.

Posted by Tim Blair at May 12, 2004 01:18 AM
Comments

i was for equal distribution of benefits before i was against it

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at May 12, 2004 at 02:44 AM

Well, since the union came out with this policy after they endorsed Senator Flip Flop, Kerry can always say he was actually against gay marriage when he supported gay marriage.

Simple, no?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at May 12, 2004 at 03:01 AM

Unfortunately it isn't really any kind of statement they are making. I live in the People's Republic of Massachusetts and most of the employers in the state are changing their policy to this. Now that gays can get married if they left their old policy which discriminated against strait people living together in that gay couples could get the bennies but heteros couldn't Now that gays can get married in Mass they became open to lawsuits by hetero couples demanding the same rights as gays. Remember in left wing states such as this some are more equal than others. And as an old white man I'm about equal to shit.

Posted by: Two in the Hat at May 12, 2004 at 03:31 AM

Two - I don't think this is the same as employers dumping their old "domestic partner" policies now that gays can get married. I think this is a union saying they don't care what the state says, they will only recognize man/woman marriages.

Posted by: R C Dean at May 12, 2004 at 05:30 AM

You are right RC, I misread the article.

Posted by: Two in the Hat at May 12, 2004 at 05:41 AM

No doubt the same bunch of legal manipulators will try to make it required by law - the "Human Rights Campaign"?!? no doubt.
Right for just SOME humans is what they want...

Posted by: Joe at May 12, 2004 at 09:19 AM

Talk about nuance, from Solidarity Forever to Solidarity, Whatever...maybe twenty years from now they'll write scholarly articles about the Kerryfication of the American Labor Movement.

Posted by: Timothy Lang at May 12, 2004 at 04:07 PM