Indiana University same sex partner benefits end Dec. 31

[DonViejo]

Source: Associated Press

SOUTH BEND, Ind. (AP) — More than 20 Indiana University employees will lose health care coverage if they don’t marry their same-sex partners by the end of the month.

University employees in same-sex relationships have relied on a domestic-partner health care policy offered since 2002, the South Bend Tribune (http://bit.ly/2iIDSft ) reported.

Employees who applied for the benefit were required to sign an affidavit saying he or she would marry if the opportunity was available.

A university spokeswoman said the number of domestic partners enrolled in medical plans dropped from 250 at its highest point to 22 after marriage certificates were submitted following the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. Shortly after the Supreme Court decision the IU board of trustees discontinued domestic partner benefits. Those benefits will expire Dec. 31.

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2016/12/29/indiana-university-same-sex-partner-benefits-end-dec-31/

[redstatebluegirl]

1. We lived in Indiana for 5 years, I am not surprised.

Actually I am surprised that they allowed it at all, but Bloomington is a more open minded town than others in that state.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. The benefit of marriage is the benefit of marriage. Period.

No one should allow financial pressures or external benefits to influence
their decision to marry or not to marry. IOW, getting married for the
wrong reason is not a very good idea.

[IronLionZion]

3. Is this a bad thing?

Marriage is legal, so why not? Seems reasonable

[Blue Shoes]

4. Yea, this just seems like a transitional legal thing.

[Ms. Toad]

7. Perhaps.

Even though marriage is legal, not all individual couples who have made the equivalent of a marriage commitment to each other can afford to "out" themselves. Marriage records are legal records, in most places, so in areas of the country where discrimination is still rampant, as a same gender couple the decision to marry is still not purely a legal question.

So - legally - same gender couples are now in the same position as mixed gender couples as to the right to marry. But from the standpoint of societal treatment (employment, licensing, family relationships, etc.) we are still not equal. Legally, our marriages are protected. Freedom from other discrimination has not yet been tested through the Supreme Court - and a marriage license might cause the spouse not employed by the University to lose his or her job. In communities where anti-gay violence is prevalent, the consequences of outing oneself to gain access to health care might be being beaten up or death.

In the era of Trump, the latter fears (actually all of them) are a lot more real than they were a few months ago.

[djg21]

11. Putting aside legitimate fears of discrimination,

I disagree. All couples, whether same-sex or heterosexual, should be treated precisely the same under the law and entitled to precisely the same benefits. The Equal Protect clause of the 14th Amendment demands as much. Notably, this same argument was offered in support of same-sex marriage, and is no less persuasive now. If unmarried heterosexual couples are ineligible to receive benefits reserved to those who are married, unmarried same-sex couples should be equally ineligible.

[Ms. Toad]

12. That's like saying,

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the show?

The two are not distinct issues. Requiring marriage to access health care puts many gay individuals at risk for discrimination in a way that it does not put straight individuals at risk. Equal protection laws protect similarly situated individuals. Because discrimination based on sexual orientation is likely still legal, the parties are not similarly situated as to the impact of marriage.

As an abstract theory I agree with you - and have always been uneasy with treating unmarried mixed gender couples differently than unmarried same gender couples. But since the law has, until recently, expressly treated us differently. Now that it doesn't - as to marriage - it is time to move in the direction of equalizing business policies as to access to health insurance. But I'm not convinced we are at the point where it is equitable to do so yet.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Same thing at my public university in Ohio.

Not surprised. The policy was implemented as a way to attract top talent when marriage-based discrimination was at its peak via the marriage discrimination laws and constitutional amendments being passed. It was one of the few positive outcomes of the anti-gay rhetoric. Now that same gender couples can marry, there is little legal need for the policy.

We were given ample warning (early October), should we choose to marry.

I did push their buttons a bit, since they requested a copy of my marriage license (which they've had since I was hired 4 years ago), and documentation that we were still living together as a couple. I suggested that if they were not requiring that of mixed gender couples whose legal status was not changing by marriage or divorce that requesting it of me was discriminatory (since I've been legally married for 12 years). To their credit, they backed off immediately - and on their own suggested that they should review all of their files to see if others were similarly situated.

[Yo_Mama]

6. This has been happening as SSM was legalized state by state. Normalization.

I think it's a good thing - the previous benefit was to get around the marriage prohibition.

[Ms. Toad]

8. Normalization is a good thing,

But it may be premature to treat it as normalized until it actually is.

Forcing marriage to continue access to health care puts gay individuals at risk in ways it does not put mixed gender couples at risk.

There are no guarantees that the right to marry will protect the covered spouse from employment discrimination for being gay. Marriage licenses are, generally, public documents. It is unclear whether the right to marry ALSO includes the right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Unlike a mixed gender couple, the spouse of an employee that formerly offered domestic partner coverage may now have to choose between continued access to health care - and employment (if their employer is a bigot who might learn of the spouse's sexual orientation by virtue of the marriage).

[MichMan]

13. That doesn't make any sense

Your argument doesn't make any sense. ????

If the employer was going to discriminate against a gay couple for being married, wouldn't they have already discriminated against them when the same couple previously applied for same sex partner benefits ?

One would have to believe that an employer that was willing to offer same sex benefits in the first place wouldn't discriminate once the couple was married. If they were that bigoted, they wouldn't have ever offered them at all.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Typically, couples don't work for the same employer.

If they did, each would have access to their own health insurance.

The more typical scenario is that Partner A works for a gay-friendly company that offers health insurance . Partner B works for - say - Hobby Lobby - notably gay-antagonistic - and doesn't offer health insurance.

Because Partner B can't get health insurance on his own, in order to obtain health insurance through Partner A's gay-friendly employer, Partner A and B must now marry. The marriage license is, generally, a public record. Partner B's Hobby Lobby-type employer finds out partner B just married his same gender partner and fires him for being gay.

The issue isn't that Partner A's gay-friendly employer will discriminate against Partner A. It is that Partner B, who works for someone else, has to out himself (by virtue of public marriage records) and there is not currently reliable employment discrimination protection to keep Partner B from being fired for being bay.

So Partner B (the family) must choose between acces to health care and Partner B's job security.

[MichMan]

16. I still dont understand your example

I guess I don't understand how "Hobby Lobby" would even find out if one of their employees applied for a marriage license.

If as you believe they routinely do record checks of employees, why would the partner's health care status at a different employer change anything?

I thought the whole intent of gay marriage was so opposite and same sex legal partnerships were treated the same. The only reason employers offered same sex benefits was because there was no option to marry. Now that there is, there is no reason to not drop the "separate but equal" same sex benefits. It seems very unreasonable to expect employers to offer expensive benefits to anyone that the employee requests.

Is your position that same sex partners should avoid marriage after so many fought so hard for it?

[Ms. Toad]

17. Marriages, generally, are public records.

Hobby Lobby - or whatever bigoted employer the spouse may be working for can access the public records and find out that their employe is gay because he married is spouse in order to obtain health insurance.

Employee benefits are private, as are domestic partnerships (generally). The bigoted employer would not be able to find out that its employee was obtaining health insurance as a domestic partner.

If, in order to get access to health care, the couple must marry they are being forced to create a public record that the bigoted employer (or landlord, etc.) can gain access to.

I've been married - likely retroactive to 1981, since my state recognized common law marriages that were established through 1990- and ours certainly was established well before 1990. We were also married by our faith community (after an 8 year struggle), and were married at law in Canada in 2004. I'm certainly not suggesting same sex partners shoudl avoid marriage. But, for 35 years I've had the luxury of enough job security, savngs, and support of family and my faith community, to be able to risk being out. Not everyone has that luxury - even now.

What I am suggesting is that it may be too soon to pretend that a same gender couple is similarly situated to a mixed gender couple. The decision to marry and create a public record of one's homosexuality in order to gain access to health care opens you up - in many states - to legally sanctioned discrimination in housing, employment, and other areas. In the era of increased anti-gay violence, in some parts of the country it also opens you up to harassment and violence. Mixed gender couples contemplating marrriage don't have to choose between

Essentially I'm pointing out that getting married is not the low-risk option for a same gender couple that it is for a mixed gender couple - because most people think the fight is over. Just get married - what's the big deal? Look how many posts it took for you to even understand (assuming you do now) that accessing benefits by marriage opens up a whole other can of discrimination worms.

Even though gay couples can now get married across the country, other issues are at stake. Some states don't have antidiscrimination laws, so gay couples there may be wary about getting married in case they "out" themselves and suffer negative consequences, such as being denied services or housing, according to the Human Rights Campaign, which is urging employers to maintain their domestic-partner benefits.

"If an LGBT employee is, in effect, 'outed' by being required to obtain a public marriage license in a state that doesn't provide explicit non-discrimination protections, it could place that employee and their family at risk of being denied credit, housing and public accommodation," said HRC legal director Sarah Warbelow in a statement. "These core elements of daily life could be compromised for LGBT families, even in states that might honor their marriage license."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gay-marriage-ruling-may-lead-to-health-insurance-risk/

Yet requiring employees in same-sex relationships to marry comes with its own set of concerns. Many couples, for example, may have already sorted out their financial matters in a way that’s satisfactory to them, Solomon says. And it’s still legal to fire LGBT people in 30 states based on their sexual orientation, which getting married would highlight. Like Dewitt, you may want to opt to continue offering the coverage.

Those of us who have juggled the multiple sources of discrimination for decades pretty quickly see when taking advantage of new-found equality in one aspect of our lives may come at a steep cost in other aspects of our lives.

[dbackjon]

9. That's fair

We wanted equality. We got marriage equality. Can't have it both ways.

[sarah FAILIN]

10. I don't have a problem with this

To give them continued benefits at this point would be like giving benefits to couples dating. As a matter of fact, the couples just dating have a right to be mad they can't get the same benefit. The option to be married and get equal benefits is available. To not take advantage of the law now makes me think they were committing insurance fraud to get benefits for people that might not even be gay. JMO

[BigDemVoter]

14. With gay marriage now, I guess they see it as not necessary?

[dembotoz]

18. My wifes new employer demanded an original noterized copy of the marraige license to add me to the

policy.

we had sent a copy and were told that was not good enough

so i took it down to hr...she is visiting her brother at the time and they looked at in. made a new copy with a time stamp and sent me on my way......i have a traditional male female marriage and we had to do this bs.

when there i asked about what happens if the couple has a common law thing like many states do.....
the guy chuckled and looked at me in said....in this state you need the piece of paper....

not saying this is good or bad i am just saying what is