Gay workers to get family leave (AP)

[-Jrabbit]

Not to pile on, Ben, but beyond the goofy math and false assumption that the law enables blatant fraud, did you happen to notice that THERE IS NO PROPOSED OBAMA LAW? This proposal would basically be a change in the Labor Dept.'s interpretation of the existing law (Family and Medical Leave Act, 1993).

So please stop with your deliberately misleading use of phrases like "Obama's bill." It's a Clinton-era bill, passed by a Republican Congress. Literally every objection you have voiced is an issue with the current law, yet it has been sitting on the books for 17 years.

Or, more simply: STFU, you disingenuous troll.

[Ben Kenobi]

My bottom line is if a benefit would be available to any male-female couple that holds themselves out as adoptive parents should be the same for same-sex couples

Unfortunately for you the bill is not worded as such. The bill explicitly says that people can name 'partners' irrespective as to whether they have children or no.

Personally, if it were my business, I'd give people x amount of 'personal leave', that would be compensated but would come out of your holiday time. You want to go to a baseball game instead of working? Great.

Take one of your personal days.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not to pile on, Ben, but beyond the goofy math and false assumption that the law enables blatant fraud, did you happen to notice that THERE IS NO PROPOSED OBAMA LAW? This proposal would basically be a change in the Labor Dept.'s interpretation of the existing law (Family and Medical Leave Act, 1993).

Sigh. I said Obama bill.

Changing the wording of the existing law to name 'partners' without specifying qualified partners opens up all the abuse I listed. As worded the bill is terrible.

So please stop with your deliberately misleading use of phrases like "Obama's bill." It's a Clinton-era bill, passed by a Republican Congress. Literally every objection you have voiced is an issue with the current law, yet it has been sitting on the books for 17 years.

umm, no. The current bill requires you to have some sort of formal recognition, either common law or marriage. Which is why the more cogent commentators have suggested that if gay marriage were permitted this would close the loophole.

Leaving the bill, as is, would open up a huge loophole. There are many ways in which someone could legally name a partner and use the partner to gain time off work.

[Ben Kenobi]

Any sensible plan administrator has thought of this and usually it gets covered at the moment you fill out a form and only have the ability to add one spouse or similar to spouse.

This is the federal government we are talking about where the cost to running the show isn't based on market principles.

Where in this bill does it suggest that this would be limited to one partner only?

[-Jrabbit]

THERE IS NO BILL!!!

[giblets]

bill [bil]
–noun
Government. a form or draft of a proposed statute presented to a legislature, but not yet enacted or passed and made law.

courtesy of Dictionary.com

[Ben Kenobi]

form or draft of a proposed statute presented to a legislature, but not yet enacted or passed and made law.

Thanks Gribbler.

[giblets]

Wait, does Ben actually think his usage is correct?

[Ben Kenobi]

Would you prefer Obama 'executive order'.

but I guess that it's coming from the Labour department means that it's got nothing to do with Obama. Right.

I'm actually giving more credit to the administration by referring as a 'bill'. Really, it's not a bill. It's not a proposal.

It's an 'Order".

Does Obama order work for you, JRabbit?

[-Jrabbit]

It's clearly an administration initiative. All it does is expand the existing FMLA law to cover non-traditional families, and it will apply only to leave relating to child care issues. But you state:

Leaving the bill, as is, would open up a huge loophole. There are many ways in which someone could legally name a partner and use the partner to gain time off work.

If you had actually read about the proposal, you might have run across this:

The move is not, however, a full expansion of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act. This expansion applies only to caring for children.

So all your blather about multi-partner deception rings is pure fantasy.

The Family Equality Council, another advocacy group, estimated that one million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families were raising two million children. The upshot of the Labor Department policy, she said, is that 'if you act like a parent, do the work of a parent and raise a child like a parent, then you are a parent for the purpose of the Family and Medical Leave Act.' Federal law does not recognize same-sex relationships. But Labor Department lawyers have concluded that people in such relationships may nevertheless qualify for family and medical leave when they act as parents, sharing the care and support of a child.

[Ben Kenobi]

'if you act like a parent, do the work of a parent and raise a child like a parent, then you are a parent for the purpose of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

So how many mommies does she have? One, two, or three?

[Japher]

I see Asher.

[Ming]

All I ever said is that cats and dogs are among our 'loved ones', terminology that Obama uses.

Yep... you are the only one that saw cats and dogs as loved ones, and you are the only one that wants to bring animals into the conversation. Why is that Ben? Do you want to consider a animal as your significant other? I'm sure you are the only one that would consider it.... because nobody else has mentioned it... or were you just trying to make your usual asine association between gays and bestiality?

As usual Ben, you can try to cast the attention elsewhere, but the FACT is, you are the one that wants to add animals to the discussion, the only person that wants to do so... to consider that animals/pets could be included as "parteners"... Do your pets really turn you on like that? For shame... you need to go to confession and confess your sins to a priest who probably raped some child...

[Flubber]

Overall this seems like a very simple thing.

1. People generally do not want unpaid leave. Some will for whatever reason but the distinction between accumulating 3 years of unpaid leave and quitting gets a bit blurry LOL.

2. Regardless of what the law provides, people will know if they go on extended leave they may show themselves to be easily expendable later.

3. If anything is limited to your spouse/partner its pretty easy to say you get only one and any talk of non-humans in that role is ridiculous

4. Paid "personal" or family leave days are somewhat common but are usually limited to one or two per year for most folks. For Mrs Flubber they seem to be a no questions asked method to take a day off when she needs them.

5. Legislation that permits longer unpaid leave seems to me to be mainly about letting someone not lose their job in the face of a family tragedy-- Kid gets sick, Mom has a stroke, spouse gets hit by bus. All those reasons are equally true for gay as they are for straight couples

[Flubber]

So how many mommies does she have? One, two, or three?

In the world of divorce and step-parents, half siblings etc etc-- It would not surprise me if lots of children would claim 2 moms and 2 dads.

So Ben we have a cancer kid at a key time in their treatments. Will you deny the right to some unpaid time off to the biological mom or to the wife of the biological dad??

Isn't this one of your nefarious benefits rings and gosh darn it you cannot have two moms abusing this right (to unpaid time off!!)