RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

09/29/2005

Does 'nearly married' mean 'fully insured?'

by Jeremy Hooper

  According to an AP report, there is some confusion among Connecticut businesses as to what benefits they'll be required to offer "civil-unioned" same-sex couples, once such "almost-marriages" become legal in the state this Saturday.

According to us, the bosses best not be confused about our right to the joyous bounty of waffle irons and China pieces afforded to our newly wedded hetero co-workers, or they'll have some extremely pissed-off "cases of the Mondays" on their hands, the likes of which they've never seen. Equality begins with top of the line, shiny, silver appliances.

Bosses have to shift for civil unions [AP via ConnPost.com]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails