Links I Like
- Blogs
-
<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >> - Oswald Sobrino's Catholic Analysis
- Dom Bettinelli's Blog
- Mark Shea's Blog
- Catholic Kerry Watch
- Disputations
- Catholic Ragemonkey
- Fr. Rob's Blog
- Times Against Humanity
- The Mighty Barrister
- After Abortion
- Happy Catholic
- Catholic
- The Vatican
- Catholic Exchange
- Spirit Daily
- St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology
- Catholic Answers
- CatholiCity
- Crisis Magazine
- Priests For Life
- Your Catholic Voice
- Catholics Against Kerry
- Christopher West: Theology of the Body
- Scripture Catholic
- Sports
- New England Patriots
- NFL Official Site
- Boston Redsox
Archives
- 04/18/2004 - 04/24/2004
- 04/25/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/02/2004 - 05/08/2004
- 05/09/2004 - 05/15/2004
- 05/16/2004 - 05/22/2004
- 05/23/2004 - 05/29/2004
- 07/18/2004 - 07/24/2004
- 07/25/2004 - 07/31/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 08/07/2004
Contact
Site Feed
A blog of a Catholic father and husband, struggling to work out his salvation with fear and trembling in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
Ad Majoriem Dei GloriamTM
TM - Obligitory Latin Phrase for a Catholic Blog(translation)
Thursday, May 20, 2004
The Glories of Gay Marriage
Well we in Kennedy country have gay "marriage". Happy happy, joy joy. The images of men on men and women on women kissing plastered all over the t.v. and newspapers is enough to make you lose your lunch.
A little over a year ago, I resigned from a decent software company. You may have heard of it, it's called IBM ;>) One of the reasons for this was the company's strong support for all things gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, trans-sexual, trans-am...um, oh sorry, I got carried away there. Now the company I work for, because of the MSJC's decision to impose gay "marriage" from on high, has to offer benefits to employee's same-sex "spouses". That is they must offer it for insurance plans that are "fully insured", whatever that means. But an email from HR specifies that although certain plans that are "self-insured"(again whatever that means) do not legally obligated to provide coverage for same-sex "spouses", the company will do so.
I must admit, I was disappointed. But I wonder if the company could really have done otherwise? I know technically, it could have. But I don't know what the ramifications would have been. Self employment is looking better all the time. What does everyone else think? Should I be disappointed with my company's policy?
Well we in Kennedy country have gay "marriage". Happy happy, joy joy. The images of men on men and women on women kissing plastered all over the t.v. and newspapers is enough to make you lose your lunch.
A little over a year ago, I resigned from a decent software company. You may have heard of it, it's called IBM ;>) One of the reasons for this was the company's strong support for all things gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, trans-sexual, trans-am...um, oh sorry, I got carried away there. Now the company I work for, because of the MSJC's decision to impose gay "marriage" from on high, has to offer benefits to employee's same-sex "spouses". That is they must offer it for insurance plans that are "fully insured", whatever that means. But an email from HR specifies that although certain plans that are "self-insured"(again whatever that means) do not legally obligated to provide coverage for same-sex "spouses", the company will do so.
I must admit, I was disappointed. But I wonder if the company could really have done otherwise? I know technically, it could have. But I don't know what the ramifications would have been. Self employment is looking better all the time. What does everyone else think? Should I be disappointed with my company's policy?
Orbitrek