General Discussion

uppityperson

(116,022 posts)

71. I disagree with this part, wondering what employer requires that?

Wed May 13, 2015, 06:52 PM

May 2015

"it's typical to require that beneficiaries are in an intimate, committed long-term relationship with the employee, that the two are co-resident, and that they support each other economically."

I have never been asked how intimate my husband and I or if we support each other economically. They have never asked how committed we are and actually we were able to get benefits from the first day of our marriage, hardly long-term relationship at that time. They also have never given a hoot whether or not we live together or not.

And I don't recall any of that in the marriage statute I read before I got married, any of the times I got married.

If that is the sort of marriage someone has, good for them, but I've never heard of an employer requiring all of that. Maybe not living in the Bible Belt, I've never run across it.

What employer do you know that requires "beneficiaries are in an intimate, committed long-term relationship with the employee, that the two are co-resident, and that they support each other economically"?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Firms Tell Gay Couples: Wed or Lose Your Benefits [View all] former9thward May 2015 OP

Well worth the equality in all 50 states yeoman6987 May 2015 #1

But there is this problem: former9thward May 2015 #7

Not a valid argument. WillowTree May 2015 #20

It is quite valid. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #21

Still not valid. Equal has to be equal. WillowTree May 2015 #24

But "equal is NOT equal". Behind the Aegis May 2015 #26

But that can't be a concern for the employer. WillowTree May 2015 #27

It should be. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #28

Nice characterization there. WillowTree May 2015 #31

This message was self-deleted by its author Behind the Aegis May 2015 #35

Yep. Without the full protection of the law... hunter May 2015 #34

Apparently, this is a difficult concept for some to understand. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #36

If you are living with your partner, B2G May 2015 #43

No. It isn't to everyone. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #46

We are cross posting B2G May 2015 #49

But the argument was the fear that they might be outed to their employer. pnwmom May 2015 #74

It is Bullshit that things like that can still happen LostOne4Ever May 2015 #78

That's insane. diabeticman May 2015 #2

Yes, that is the exact implication. No benefits for a non-married partner, regardless of gender. tritsofme May 2015 #3

They already do. former9thward May 2015 #4

The comparison would be an opposite sex couple that's not married. tammywammy May 2015 #5

That depends on the state. WillowTree May 2015 #18

Some don't even need that, as some places will recognize "common law" marriage. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #19

Or a Domestic Partnership SoCalNative May 2015 #55

My company NEVER JustAnotherGen May 2015 #6

My company doesnt offer benefits to unmarried straight couples Travis_0004 May 2015 #9

There is a difference though. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #13

Not really.. SoCalDem May 2015 #33

In some places, they most certainly can add them. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #37

But many companies do SoCalNative May 2015 #57

Couples who weren't married wouldn't be entitled to spousal benefits, regardless of orientation. n/t pnwmom May 2015 #75

Certain my company will go down this path JustAnotherGen May 2015 #8

There is the potential to a down side to it. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #14

That was part of the whole "list of benefits denied because gays can't marry" argument jberryhill May 2015 #10

If a company only offers benefits to married straight couples, Vinca May 2015 #11

Plenty of answers in posts above. hunter May 2015 #38

Better to expand benefits to all unmarried couples. n/t Unvanguard May 2015 #12

That opens the door to unlimited fraud. former9thward May 2015 #15

That's just as true for same-sex domestic partner benefits. Unvanguard May 2015 #32

Every word in your last sentence is subjective former9thward May 2015 #52

You are free to speculate about the problems with a standard that works just fine in practice. Unvanguard May 2015 #58

I disagree with this part, wondering what employer requires that? uppityperson May 2015 #71

I'm talking about benefits for unmarried partners. Unvanguard May 2015 #72

ah, thank you, my mistake. sorry. eom uppityperson May 2015 #73

I am torn here dsc May 2015 #16

Because this seems relevant to the discussion: Behind the Aegis May 2015 #17

Not gonna fly out here KamaAina May 2015 #22

"Be careful what you ask for" ..... JustABozoOnThisBus May 2015 #23

"This would seem to be a natural consequence of legalized marriage." Behind the Aegis May 2015 #29

How so? B2G May 2015 #41

Because unlike heterosexuals, we face the possibility of other bigotries. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #42

But your employer already knows B2G May 2015 #45

Yes, the employer knows, that isn't the point. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #48

the problem with this is that gay rights are still being challenged, we have seen it JI7 May 2015 #25

There are some states where this wouldn't be an issue. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #30

Anyone brave enough to live in Oklahoma would probably do well to choose a MADem May 2015 #68

This message was self-deleted by its author jwirr May 2015 #39

If gay marriage is legal, they need to marry to retain benefits B2G May 2015 #40

It is not "equal" when it can force them to choose between civil liberties. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #44

Unless I'm misunderstanding B2G May 2015 #47

What you aren't understanding is making marriage EQUAL (not gay) won't not make us equal everywhere. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #50

What states have ant-gay laws and what are they? B2G May 2015 #51

Here are some maps... Behind the Aegis May 2015 #53

Also adding this for you to read... Behind the Aegis May 2015 #54

Yes, that is exactly where the poster is saying. Hosnon May 2015 #66

I would think the states that still allow discrimination treestar May 2015 #79

then should there be KT2000 May 2015 #56

I am really confused by your remarks. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #61

I am thinking of solutions KT2000 May 2015 #65

The double standard has been in play for along time. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #67

we will have to see KT2000 May 2015 #69

The problem is short-sightedness and heterosexism laced with homophobia. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #83

my point is KT2000 May 2015 #84

My point is things aren't made equal because of one law regarding marriage equality. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #85

I've always thought that insurance coverage Politicalboi May 2015 #59

Problem is that employment health coverage is subsidized. Unvanguard May 2015 #60

Why would an employer pay to cover your neighbor?? B2G May 2015 #70

Isn't this less of an issue now that Obamacare is in place? Nye Bevan May 2015 #62

Health benefits aren't the only benefits most places offer. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #63

But they're facing the SAME risk right now if they apply for same-sex partner benefits. n/t pnwmom May 2015 #76

No, they are not. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #80

But when you use your insurance, you have to fill out forms listing secondary insurance, pnwmom May 2015 #81

You can opt out of insurance, which is what many people do for the better insurance. Behind the Aegis May 2015 #82

You seem to imply Obamacare policies are free. former9thward May 2015 #64

Many companies don't contribute to family coverage TexasBushwhacker May 2015 #77