peeking into your bedroom
David Caton is looking for ways to kill Tampa’s domestic partner benefit program. Caton is the executive director of Florida Family Association, a group that wants to "improve and protect our moral environment." This guy and his organization want to regulate your life, keep you away from pornography and homosexuality. I want him to keep his nose out of my bedroom.
No tag for this post.
Loading ...
April 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Wouldn’t it be nice if recovering porn addict David Caton put his reformer’s zeal to work in the service of something positive rather than self-righteously persecuting people who do not share his self-hatred and sexual compulsion? Perhaps he and Brian Blair could face off in a series of mud-wrestling tournies to raise funds for a worthy cause, say a homeless shelter or Big Brothers program. I think Buddy McKay has the perfect spot for them in a remote Plant City location, far from Sin City. All they have to do is pay his back taxes. Everyone wins. David and Brian get to rub against each other while remaining in denial and we get rid of a couple of opportunists looking to make a name for themselves by exploiting ignorance and xenophobia.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:20 am
That’s Buddy Johnson not Buddy McKay
April 10th, 2008 at 10:35 am
My problem is less that gays receive this benefit than the benefit itself. How does one prove “intent” to stay in a long-term relationship? What safety-nets are there for fraudulent exploitation of this benefit.
At least with married staright couples, you have a legally binding document to prove the relationship.
We are talking about public employees and thus taxpayer dollars here.
These questions also apply to the heterosexual couples taking advantage of this benefit.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:37 am
So basically what you’re saying, Reality Czech, is that we need to have legalized gay marriage?
Good for you!
April 10th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Maf54, you made me laugh out loud at work, Thanks!
April 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Mr Caton professes to be a Christian. Too bad he doesn’t spend more time with the New Testament, particlularly all the red-lettered stuff.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I have no problem with it, and I don’t like the idea of the benefits going to unmarried hetero couples.
My g/f costs me enough $ as it is.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
You’re welcome, wifey, hehehe!
I love Sticks, and you have a great hubby even if I disagree with him once in a while.
But I don’t disagree with him on this.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am
What is the problem with providing benefits *without* dictating the recipient? If you work full time and qualify, I don’t care if you list your goldfish as your spouse/partner/whatever.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Meredith - adding more beneficiaries to a public program increases the overall risk and exposure. If anyone adds simply a boy/girl firend for the purposes of coverage, they may only have to pay the premiums, but we the taxpayers pay the higher rates the insurance companies charge to take on more risk.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Meredith: I love your idea of allowing employees to designate a benefits partner regardless of the relationship. Reality Czech: One way or another, we’re going to pay for medical indigents. Wouldn’t it be better is we only had to pay part of the insurance rather than all of the hospital bill?
Phil: D’oh! Thanks for the correction. My apologies to Mr. McKay. I first typed Buddy Freddy.
April 11th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I just wanted to point out that many companies who offer benefits to non-married parties have very strict regulations to follow, far more strict than married couples.
Say you have a partner you want to include. Your partner and you break up, and you remove him from your benefits. A couple years later, you get back together, and you want to add him back. You can’t. Once you remove him, he’s gone forever.
Also, you can’t add a domestic partner any time, like you can with a new wife or husband. You have to wait until open enrollment.
Imagine you got married, you added your wife right away, you get divorced a year later, remove her from the plan. But then you get remarried a year after that, you can add her on the plan.
Even better, you get married, you add your wife to the plan. Then she gets a job with benefits that are better than the ones you offer her, and she gets her own insurance and you remove her from yours. Then she loses her job a couple years later …. guess what, you can add her back.
A domestic partner wouldn’t be able to do that in the same situation.
On top of that, gay people still aren’t allowed to donate blood, despite the fact that AIDS afflicts more heterosexual people than homosexual people.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Adding participants does not “increase risk” and raise rates Reality Czech. Oh, and the insurance costs taxpayers only for the employee portion only.
As for “exploiting” the system. I was having a discussion with the HR Director of my company about just this topic, and pointed out that the company nor the insurance company required one to actually produce a marriage license to prove they are legally married. So, what’s keeping anyone from exploiting the system.
Always wanting to take away from someone else.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
When Caton was on the warpath against Howard Stern and ClearChannel, one of his favorite tactics was to send out mailings listing the advertisers on the shows. He would often include the home addresses of the business owners in case people wanted to contact them “directly.”
I did some googling, and it appears Mr. Caton has a wife named Rachael. A public records search at the Hillsborough County Tax Appraisers website (http://www.hcpafl.org/www/search/index.shtml) for Caton D returns a home owned by a David E and Rachael Caton with a zip code the same as the zip code associated with the PO Box used by The Florida Family Association. I won’t list the address here, but it is a public record.
Does anyone have a clue what this guy does to earn a living? Can he possibly bring in enough contributions to his one man operation with a website to live on?
August 30th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I do not believe this