Straight (Unmarried) Woman Wants Gay Partner Benefits

[deadparrot]

(Olympia, Washington) A heterosexual woman says she is being unfairly treated because she and her partner are denied the same health benefits same-sex couples enjoy, and she is using Washington state's new LGBT provisions in the human rights law as the basis of her argument.

Amendments to the Human Rights Act went into effect in June, adding sexual orientation to the list of categories were discrimination is banned in, employment, insurance and credit. (story)

The changes were aimed at protecting the state's LGBT community but Sandi Scott-Moore argues that sexual orientation covers everyone.

Scott-Moore in her complaint to the Human Rights Commission says that she was denied health insurance coverage for her male partner by Honeywell International.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/08/082306warts.htm

[Anakin Skywalker]

1. Umm...Gay People

need those benefits in the first place because they aren't legally allowed to marry.

[LeftHander]

32. Agree....The state cannot legislate people to marry....

The state SHOULD not be messing around with people's relationships.

If they choose to not marry. I am so sick of the right wing trying to legislate "morality".

Marriage is the be all end all for persons in love. The state has no right to tell me that can or can't be married and what rights I am to have or my partner will have based on some whack job Christian's idea of "family".

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Why does that justify denying rights to others?

If gay couples can have these rights without being married--regardless of the fact that they're not allowed to be married--why does that force opposite sex couples to marry if they don't want to?

I've been through this, and although deeply in love with my mate, monogamous, having had a mortgage together for nine years at the time and with a two year-old child, we were denied health coverage by a system that would cover same-sex couples just because we didn't like the concept of marriage. We were more "married" than most other married couples we knew, but liked the spirit of Joni Mitchell's "My Old Man" ("...we don't need no piece of paper from the city hall keeping us tied and true...") and didn't want to get married. Since one of us is true freelancer and the other is covered by union benefits, it was important to come out of the cold.

Why were we forced into a decision like this? We were denied the rights of our choice of committed cohabitation without the stodgy bonds of an institution that reeks of property, control and primitiveness, so in the end, we did marry before having our second child.

In the process, I sent a letter to the insurer stating that I was a pre-op transsexual, thus the same gender and deserving of coverage. Needless to say, they didn't even get the joke.

Why should we be forced to marry? That's a highly charged issue for us.

Remember: those of us in the so-called mainstream get fucked with by the system if we step outside of the proscribed "correct" comportment, and things aren't always as cut-and-dried as they seem.

We were denied our rights, and that's a BIG issue.

[Critters2]

38. You had a choice. Gay people don't. nt

[iverglas]

43. SO WHAT?

What IS your point?

What is the RELEVANCE of the existence of the choice, and of the choice made, to the issue of entitlement to benefits?

(Benefits that the people in ALL these situations are PAYING for, by their labour, on exactly the same basis as the people who are getting them are paying for them.)

Why does the fact that Person X is discriminated against in Manner A mean that it is just dandy to discriminate against Person Y in Manner B??

Frankly, I'd like to see the individual in this case argue that she is being discriminated against on the basis of marital status (maybe she is; I admit I haven't investigated it thoroughly), and that marital status is a completely irrelevant ground of distinction in this situation.

By your logic, same-sex couples seeking to be covered by benefit plans should have to swear statements that if given the choice of marrying or not marrying, they will marry. Otherwise, they'd be exactly like the not-married same-sex couple: they'd be not-married by choice, not because the law prohibits them from marrying.

How in the hell does it advance the cause of equality for one disadvantaged group to attempt to deny equal treatment to another disadvantaged group??

This woman IS NOT saying "if I can't have couple benefits because I'm not married, then neither can gay men and lesbians!"

Why would someone else say "if I can't get married because I'm not heterosexual, then straight people can't get not-married couple benefits!"

You're right -- that doesn't even make sense.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. They're taking away my choice; isn't that OBVIOUS?

We were forced to marry, whereas same sex couples didn't have to. Sure, many same sex couples would like to marry and can't, but they can get coverage in these situations whereas we are FORCED into a stodgy societal covenant that we feel cheapens our relationship.

For same sex couples to get insurance benefits where they're available, they're not dictated to at all to change their status (because there isn't an option) but we're held captive and forced to knuckle under to ancient phallo-centric crap. No changes are expected of same sex couples, but opposite sex couples are forced into toeing the line.

How difficult is this to see?

Far too many of the downtrodden are so focused on their own oppression that they simply can't see how others are abused too. Not cleaving to the norm affects many of us.

Sadly, one of the greatest impediments to moving forward is that many minority groups get so caught up in their own struggles that they automatically think they're the most put-upon and downtrodden group, and this leads them to a selfishness and cockiness that dismisses all others.

There are lots of other fringy groups that get their asses kicked too. It's important to realize this, keep one's mind and heart open and not get obsessed with one's own troubles; that leads to conservatism. What do I mean by that? Conservatism is selfishness; pluralism is the acceptance of differences and deep desire for coexistent. Regardless of the injustice of one's group's plight, to demand redress while dismissing all of the other dispossessed is selfish, short-sighted and when unremitting is just plain mean.

[Critters2]

74. Nonsense. You had a choice. You made a choice

You get coverage or you get to take a stand against phallo-centric yada yada yada...you chose coverage. That was more important to you than NOT entering into a stodgy old covenant. So, that's what you chose. Time to stop whining.

Same sex couple don't have a choice. How difficult is that to see?

[PurityOfEssence]

82. And they force our choice, whereas you don't get strong-armed

We're talking about two different things here.

The issue at hand is not whether same sex couples have the right to get married and have that respected; in this situation they get coverage regardless. In this situation, same sex couples aren't forced to change their legal status--since there isn't any other status allowed--but opposite sex couples are forced to knuckle under to societal demands. Lest we forget, the religious implications are ever-present in marriage, and to those of us who don't believe, that's a big issue.

You are incredibly incorrect. Nobody expects any change from same sex partners in a situation like this and they get the benefits with no glitch, but opposite sex partners are demanded to bow and scrape, kneeling at the feet of society's demand to be married.

What on earth are you talking about? Same sex couples don't have a choice. Yes, that's true, but it has nothing to do with this situation. We are forced to conform to society's icky little norm, or have no coverage. No one is asking same sex partners to change their status at all to get coverage, whereas we are demanded to conform or not be allowed to share benefits. Same sex partners don't have to change; we have to slither on our belly and kiss the signet ring of ancient crap or have no coverage.

We all have our bigotries, but you're tilting at windmills that have nothing to do with the situation.

Shame on you for playing the victim card; this has nothing to do with gay marriage or same sex rights; the whole situation is premised upon being in an arena where same sex partnership is accepted. It has NOTHING to do with same sex couples being denied the right to marry. I support the right of same sex couples marrying, but I hate being forced to marry to prove that I'm an adequate support system for my spouse, an intimate family member and rearer of our children, and I resent the double standard.

As for using the phrase "whining", that sounds like the standard conservative attack against those with differing opinions as being crybabies; this is the brusque dismissal of anyone of a differing opinion as being an inferior.

Your pain is not superior to my pain, regardless of the level of your oppression. Far, far beyond that, you're muddying the issue with the issue of choice for same sex partners to marry. In these insurance issues, nobody forces you to take a legal stand, whereas for us old time straight liberals, we're forced to suck up to institutions we abhor. You aren't asked to change; we're demanded to change. What's unclear about that? If you can't see this, then no amount of logic will sway you from focus on your own plight and get you to see how others suffer too. This is the childish tyranny of the selfish oppressed. Others suffer too. Learn that: others suffer too.

To accuse others of "whining" is to tip one's hand as an intolerant, self-absorbed and ham-fisted bully. Those who believe in the free flow of ideas don't use such charged dismissals; those who demand their worldview to hold sway insist that contrary views be derided and hounded from the field.

NOTE TO MODERATORS: this adheres to the board rules, and contentious as it is, was quite provoked by those of contrary views.

[IndytheDog]

84. Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.

It is a "business" decision facilitating legal matters such as insurance and visitation rights. You had already given in to "social norms" by being monagamous and having a child. You were "married" before you were legally married. So what are you talking about? Gay partners who are "married" but not legally married (because they cannot be) were not able to receive the benefits of that legal contract. If your commitment to your partner was so grand that you didn't care about that little piece of paper, you should've just gotten one, because what would it matter, except for matters of legal rights? Rule of law, sometimes is practical. You shouldn't think of it as trampling on you romantic notions.

[iverglas]

86. ya think?

Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.

So if I get married and then change my mind, and my partner agrees, he and I can just rip the thing up and walk away?

What abject nonsense.

If your commitment to your partner was so grand that you didn't care about that little piece of paper, you should've just gotten one, because what would it matter, except for matters of legal rights?

Here's the $64,000 question: WHAT DOES IT MATTER TO YOU?

I've asked it a few times in this thread, to a resounding silence so far.

All us straight folks here seem to be in agreement that it should not (and does not) matter to us how gay and lesbian folks choose to arrange their affairs -- i.e. that they are entitled to marry if they wish. NO ONE here is telling them that they are not entitled or should not be permitted to marry. NO ONE. Everyone here is saying that they are just as entitled to whatever it is that people are after when they get married as anyone else is.

If people's own deeply-held beliefs and values and principles don't matter, then we'll just be taking you off to Sunday School and baptizing you now, if it's all the same to you. Then you can perform a few hymns for us. No reason this should bother you. It's just a little water and music. You probably need a shower anyway.

You shouldn't think of it as trampling on you romantic notions.

And you shouldn't think of compulsory Sunday School (or maybe outlawed Sunday School?) as trampling on whatever silly notions you might harbour. Rights shmights. No reason at all you can't just do things the way we decide you oughter do 'em.

If it's all the same with you, though, I'll think of your entire icky screed as ... well, icky. Nose-poking, trivializing, self-absorbed, rights- and persons-devaluing ick.

[IndytheDog]

88. Your analogies are ridiculous.

We have to have some order to live by. Marriage, legally, is one way. Otherwise people like you would try to put your pet sheep on your insurance policy. We are free to do as we please, unlike gay people who are denied the right to marry. Nobody said she had to run down to the church and get married, any town hall would do, that's where all those legal-type people like judges do their legal stuff.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

148. and your post

Otherwise people like you would try to put your pet sheep on your insurance policy.

Is a filthy stinking lie and I can think of no reason that a decent, "liberal" person would say such a thing in his/her first appearance in this company.

But hey, that's just moi.

[Critters2]

89. Again, you weren't FORCED to do anything. You were given a choice.

If marriage were so terribly odious, why did you succumb? The fact is, you did. Insurance coverage wasmost important, so that's what you chose. That's life!

[iverglas]

93. do you really have no clue what you're saying?

Gay men and lesbians can choose to marry in the US too. Didn't you know?

Not to the people whom they want to marry, do I hear you cry?

Well tough shit. Their choice. Have I got it right?

Why, I was just quoting a nasty little Canadian right-winger on that very point in this forum just the other day ...

http://latour999.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_latour999_archive.html

First, he says that the "traditional definition of marraige" (a favorite euphimism in the Conservative Party) doens't discriminate because homosexuals can still marry, and points to Libby Davies and Svend Robinson, two openly gay NDP MPs. The problem is that Libby Davies was never married, and it doesn't take a marriage expert to figure out why Svend's marraige failed.

Oh look! A gay man who got married to a woman! Now there's something the world hasn't seen much of.

So yer a gay man who doesn't want to marry a woman? Real tough shit. Your choice.

I guess African-Americans told to sit at the back of the bus had a choice too, eh? Sit at the back or walk. Don't want to sit at the back? Your choice!

Nope, I'm not saying that the feelings of a person who is compelled BY NECESSITY to marry against her values and wishes are the same as the feelings of an African-American compelled by necessity to sit at the back of the bus.

I'm saying that I cannot believe what I'm hearing in this thread, and that I'm having a hard time believing it is just dunderheadedness.

What I know it is, of course, is the Jerry Springer Writ Large world south of my border ... Me has an opinion about everything and Me is going to tell you what My opinion about you is, and My opinion is the only thing that matters, and now Me is going to get a big round of applause and a warm feeling of validation for spewing My opinion.

Some people get warm feelings from doing and saying things that actually benefit other people ...

[Critters2]

94. Wow! Your spouse must be happy to know how pissed off you are

at being married.

Again, you made a choice. Unlike gay people in this nation, you HAVE a choice...get married, don't get married. You CHOSE to get married. I get the sense you're now unhappy with that choice. Well, that is one of the risks you take when you make any choice--it might be the wrong one.

But, hey! At least you have health insurance!

[iverglas]

101. who the hell do you imagine you're speaking to?

Wow! Your spouse must be happy to know how pissed off you are at being married.

I'm not married. Neither is my partner. Any more really dumb comments to make?

Ah, yes, I see ... quite a few ...

Again, you made a choice. Unlike gay people in this nation, you HAVE a choice...get married, don't get married. You CHOSE to get married. I get the sense you're now unhappy with that choice. Well, that is one of the risks you take when you make any choice--it might be the wrong one.

Duh de duh duh duh. Boy is your face red. Well actually, I kinda doubt it is ...

But, hey! At least you have health insurance!

Yes! I do! Because I'm Canadian and I live in Canada! And because I'm Canadian and I live in Canada, I was also covered by my partner's supplemental insurance (dental, drug ... I'm self-employed) when he had an employment-based plan! And nobody ever asked whether we were married -- because it didn't matter! And because I'm Canadian and I live in Canada, I get an exemption for my partner on my income tax return! And if I kick the bucket before him and without a will, he'll get his share of my stuff! And if he keeps letting his blood sugar go as he tends to do and ends up in hospital, I'll get to make decisions for him!

Isn't it something, what a great big funny old world there is out here??

And how none of us who have all these rights have taken any of them away from anyone else, and how our having all these rights has never meant that somebody else can't have 'em??

Who'd 'a thunk it?! People got equality rights, and people actually get equal treatment!

"I'm from Iowa. I only work in outer space." Capt. James T. Kirk

Actually, he was from Montreal.

[Strathos]

117. I can't believe there are people like you on these forums

I thought the majority of democrats, especially those on the DU were in favor of gay marriage. I can see you are hostile to us. Get married and shut up complaining about it. You have the choice, we don't.

[iverglas]

122. neither can I (ed)

What kind of a ... falsely accuses strangers of things that s/he can have no excuse for not knowing are false?

edit: just wanted to add the false accusation I'm referring to, for ease of reference:

I thought the majority of democrats, especially those on the DU were in favor of gay marriage. I can see you are hostile to us.

I am Canadian. I am not a Democrat.

Gay marriage is legal in Canada. My party, the New Democratic Party of Canada, fought for same-sex marriage rights for years. I have supported the idea since probably before you were born. And both married and not-married same-sex and opposite-sex couples have virtually identical benefits and rights and protections in the public and private sectors.

Same-sex marriage wasn't an issue when I was a candidate for the party a few times about 20 years ago -- but at the time, I was the lawyer for the local gay and lesbian activist organization. (They even illegally ran an ad in the local gay and lesbian activist newspaper supporting my candidacy.) This was 20 years ago, and I already had about 15 years' activism, for equal rights for various groups, under my belt. Where were you, I wonder?

Being a woman, the group whose rights I started out as an activist for was women. I and all of the feminists I knew wanted the choice to organize our personal lives as we saw fit. None of us was then, or is now, the slightest bit interested in anyone else's opinion about what we should or should not do.

Get married and shut up complaining about it.

Yeah. That's liberal.

Let me quote John Stuart Mill, again. He kind of originated the modern concept of liberalism, in case you hadn't heard. The commentary is from former Madam Justice Bertha Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada, in the decision striking down the abortion restrictions in the Criminal Code of Canada:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1988/1988rcs1-30/1988rcs1-30.html

John Stuart Mill described it as "pursuing our own good in our own way". This, he believed, we should be free to do "so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it". He added:

Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve the personal decisions made by its citizens; it does, however, require the state to respect them.

To paraphrase what been said here many times already, people who demand rights for themselves and tell others to shut up about theirs are exhibiting the essence of right-wingism.

What's amazing is how many don't get the problem with what they're doing. Exhibiting disrespect for other people and their rights really is just not the way to go about getting respect for one's self and one's rights.

And I'm seeing the height of disrespect in your post. Good luck with that.

[Critters2]

132. So,again, what are you whining about?

You're not married, you don't have to be married to get insurance, you're Canadian. You live the perfect life...so what is your beef?

Oh, and William Shatner is from Montreal. The fictional character (and I've noticed you have trouble sorting ficton from fact) James T. Kirk was from Riverside, IA.

[iverglas]

136. oddly enough

You're not married, you don't have to be married to get insurance, you're Canadian. You live the perfect life...so what is your beef?

I believe in equal rights for everyone ... even USAmericans.

Oh yeah ... and I really really hate it when opinions based on ignorance, prejudice, wilful stupidity, and that sort of thing are spewed out at people about whom the spewer knows nothing, especially when it's done in an effort to prevent someone from exercising equal rights.

Oh, and William Shatner is from Montreal. The fictional character (and I've noticed you have trouble sorting ficton from fact) James T. Kirk was from Riverside, IA.

Yeah, and we Canadians are used to you USAmericans not getting our jokes.

I understand that the recent TV program entitled "How William Shatner Changed the World" was given a different name in the US, given how the tongue-in-cheek self-deprecating humour would probably have flown right over ...



An Englishman, a Canadian and an American were captured by terrorists.

The terrorist leader said, "Before we shoot you, you will be allowed last words. Please let me know what you wish to talk about."

The Englishman replied, "I wish to speak of loyalty and service to the crown."

The Canadian replied, "Since you are involved in a question of national purpose, national identity, and secession, I wish to talk about the history of constitutional process in Canada, special status, distinct society and uniqueness within diversity."

The American replied, "Just shoot me before the Canadian starts talking."


Sadly, too long for a sig line. There should be special accommodations in the sig line rules for Canadians ...

[PurityOfEssence]

95. So why do you bellyache?

We were forced into a choice; same sex partners were given a deal.

How hard is this to understand? In situations where same sex partners are entitled to coverage, as they should be, they don't have to make any adjustment. In those same situations, opposite sex couples are forced to submit to a law they don't necessarily like. You, the downtrodden don't have to change a thing; we the ugly breeders have to suck up to the power structure and compromise our beliefs or risk financial ruin.

Same sex partners aren't asked to do anything, whereas we are forced to be toadies to ancient systems we don't necessarily like.

As those of us on the left have steadfastly protected and advanced the rights of the marginalized, it's disgusting to have no reciprocity. In this situation, same sex couples traipse merrily with full benefits, yet opposite sex couples, regardless of longevity and committment are forced into a crappy and primitive construct. Much as many same sex partners desire marriage, many of us abhor the institution as domination, property control and willing subservience to some supreme being or the control of the state to keep us together as if we're inferiors.
We don't like the concept of marriage, but we're forced into it by the system.

How would you like that?

You do fine, we get fucked, and yet you complain. Shame on you for holding the rest of us ransom for your pain. Yes, gays are still discriminated against, but that's no reason to trample others. Your pain and frustration is not greater than mine or my lover's; the intimation that we're by definition granted the keys to the kingdom while you sit forlorn at the gates simply doesn't hold water in this situation: we're obliged to betray our beliefs for survival while you GIVE UP NOTHING. Yes, same sex couples are endlessly derided and maneuvered against out of fear and hatred and same sex couples are more plagued by society than opposite sex couples regardless of their taste about marriage, but in this instance, the situation really screws opposite sex couples.

To not see this would be bigotry.

Just because one is oppressed is no reason to demand the podium regardless of other peoples' oppression. That's selfishness, and that's the heart of anti-pluralistic republican ugliness.

To focus on one's own oppression is a dead end street leading to irrational bitterness and isolation. It just ain't right.

If you can't see this distinction, please contact me via personal message.

[Critters2]

96. I've never demanded the podium.

And you're not obliged to do anything.

It worked like this.....Someone said to you, "Want health insurance?" You said "Yes, please." That person said, "Then you have to get married" You: "I'd rather not." Person A "Okay, no insurance"
You: "But I need insurance" Person A "Nonsense. 45 million Americans don't have health insurance." You: "I want insurance" Person A "Then you have to get married" You: "Okay".

How hard is this to grasp? You and your partner could both have jobs that proved insurance. Instead, one of you is insured through the other. That's great. And you had to stand in front of a judge to get it. BFD.

[iverglas]

102. I'll bet I can make this really, uh, simple

It worked like this.....Someone said to you, "Want health insurance?" You said "Yes, please." That person said, "Then you have to get married" You: "I'd rather not." Person A "Okay, no insurance"

It worked like this.....Someone said to you, "Want to ride to work?" You said "Yes, please." That person said, "Then you have to sit at the back of the bus" You: "I'd rather not." Person A "Okay, walk".

C'mon, you can see it. We know you can. But maybe if I stood over here ...

Hell, what did sitting at the back of the bus ever hurt anyone? And if it made someone feel creepy and devalued -- well s/he had a choice.

[Misunderestimator]

121. "Want non-taxed health insurance? OK, get married"... "I cannot."

"Okay, you can have this shitty domestic partner benefit instead, but it will cost you a lot."

[PurityOfEssence]

124. We're talking about equal benefits

In our situation, the benefits package are exactly equal for same-sex partners and for married opposite sex ones. If you're forced to have an unequal deal because of being a same-sex partner, that's extremely unfair and I'm sure everyone in this little debate here would agree completely.

Being forced into marriage to have coverage is the issue some of us have been raising, and for people not to see that this is a strong-arming and imposition of personal morality is truly amazing. Same-sex partners aren't asked to do a thing other than prove their cohabitation, whereas straight people are forced to marry. For some of us, that's an issue. Sure, it's not the end of the world, but it's still an intrusion.

Clouding the issue with "we can't get married" or "our benefits are not as good" is really either not playing fair or not getting the concept. The discussion was premised on the benefits being the same, whether articulated or not, and the fact that you don't have a choice about legal status doesn't diminish the fact that we're being forced into something we may not want.

This woman definitely has a case, and it's not a frivolous one.

Other people who defy society's norms suffer too, okay?

[Misunderestimator]

125. No argument from me that they should be equal.

But it's easy to understand a gay person's reaction, in this country where we do not have equal benefits, to react that at least straight people have a choice.

For that matter, we are forced into a contract with an unmarried partner, that is not as good as marriage, and must prove co-habitation for at least two years, to get domestic partner benefits. It can be hard to see past that greater inequality here to sympathize with a lesser inequality there.

Personally, I agree that this is a travesty that needs to be corrected, and opposite sex couples deserve the same benefits as same sex couples.

[PurityOfEssence]

161. Nice to hear that

Lost in the hubbub is that things simply aren't that simple.

Opposite sex couples DO deserve the same coverage. It springs from a concept of interdependence: a human is not able to truly take care of all of its moments of crisis, and lovers support them. This is important to employers: the care given by the partner helps the primary covered person more productive. (I'm using conservative arguments here: it's just about productivity and efficacy, not about the fairness of it.)

A love between two people is equally valid. Dividing people is the sport of idealogues.

[Critters2]

135. If you recall,

when told to sit at the back of the bus or walk, the African Americans of Montgomery walked. It was called the Montgomery Bus Boycott. They walked long distances, in all kinds of weather, for months. They were given a choice, sit at the back of the bus or walk. They refused to participate in what they considered an unjust system, and took the choice that seemed just to them. It was a difficult choice, but they chose.

The difference is that you don't want your choices to be difficult. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work that way. You've been given choices. Life is difficult.

Choose, and shut up.

[PurityOfEssence]

103. How much more can you miss the point or obfuscate it?

Someone says to same sex partners: stay as you are, and you can have benefits.

They then say to opposite sex partners: suck up to our construct of marriage, make major changes in your life, or you can't have benefits. Bend to our will. Substantiate the old order. DO OUR BIDDING OR DIE IN THE DIRT.

In these situations, same sex partners don't have to make any change at all. Opposite sex partners have to grapple with betraying core moral principles.

The most downtrodden are not necessarily the only downtrodden.

In this situation, same sex partners, much as they'd like to change their legal status, aren't required to do a thing, whereas opposite sex partners are forced to march in step.

It's no problem for same sex partners, but opposite sex partners have to suck up to the man or be left behind.

This is crap.

Other people suffer too; that's the mark of a liberal: being able to empathize with others regardless of one's own situation

[RobinA]

150. Here's How It Worked

for me, single, heterosexual.

Someone said: "If you have this job you can have insurance."

Me: "OK, I will take that insurance." Time goes by, then: "I need to do an internship to finish my graduate degree, and I will have to quit my job to do it."

Someone: "Well, you will not have employment-sponsored health insurance."

Me: "I'm not comfortable being uninsured, I will have to do research to find out what I am going to have to do to afford and obtain my own insurance." Time goes by: "Now I have figured out how I must structure my life in order to have what I feel is necessary, but not sacrifice something I will be seriously unhappy without, while I finish this degree."

According to the arguments expressed here, it appears that I have been denied my rights to paid-for insurance because I am not the domestic partner of someone with paid-for insurance.

[iverglas]

152. yeah, you got it, bub

According to the arguments expressed here, it appears that I have been denied my rights to paid-for insurance because I am not the domestic partner of someone with paid-for insurance.

Hmm. Now, what are these "rights to paid-for insurance"?

I didn't think there was such a thing in the US. I mean, unless one qualifies for Medicare or some such. Is this something new I haven't heard of?

Things apparently appear strangely to you.

The argument made in this thread (and by the person who has brought the action being discussed) is:

The employer
is discriminating
against an employee
on the ground of sexual orientation.

It's really that simple.

Nothing to do with changing jobs or going to graduate school or screwing sheep or hating GLBT folks. Nope, nothing at all.

[Critters2]

98. Btw, when have I bellyached? nt

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

120. You're way over the line with that response.

Wound-licking, grandstanding? The plain fact is that same sex couples DON'T have the choice to marry. And domestic partner benefits (taxable and VERY expensive because of that) don't go NEARLY as far as the benefits and rights extended to straight married people.

Yes, it's discriminatory for straight people to not be able to enjoy domestic partner benefits. No question about that. But your response denigrating gay people for saying that they would at least be happy to have the choice to marry, and get BETTER benefits than these measly domestic partner ones, is destructive and insulting.

[RobinA]

149. Where Does It Say

That one has to be married to get health insurance? I have health insurance, and I'm not married or a same-sex couple.

Furthermore, you abhor marriage and all in stands for but want to hitch a ride on somebody else's health insurance, normally a benefit of the abhorred marriage? You can't abhor marriage while reaping its benefits. If you are going to dismiss a societal institution (and I don't disagree), you can't cry that you don't get the benefit of the societal institution.

[iverglas]

153. where does it say

That one has to be married to get health insurance?

that anyone said that one does? Hack, cough, snork. Straw's a-flyin'.


But let's see whether we can explain this slowly, one more time.

In the context of this discussion:

The employer
is discriminating
against the employee
on the ground of sexual orientation.

It's so simple.

Now, whether employers (or anyone else) should be allowed to discriminate against people based on family status -- based on whether they are part of a married or non-married couple -- is quite a different question. It is not addressed by the legislation in issue in this discussion, which prohibits discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

I have yet to figure out why anyone, anyone, would think it more civilized to discriminate against someone based on family status than based on, oh, race or ethnicity or sex or religion, but there ya go. I'm a weird foreigner.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/h-6/sec3.html

Canadian Human Rights Act
PART I: PROSCRIBED DISCRIMINATION
General
Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

See how easy?

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Nobody's told me yet, btw. Do people who are partners in non-married couples work less hard or less well than people who are partners in married couples?

They must ... or otherwise we'd all be wondering why they shouldn't be entitled to the same compensation as their married coworkers ...

[idgiehkt]

167. I have to agree

I think domestic partner benefits shouldn't be limited to gays only; at the company I used to work for they were not.

[iverglas]

78. you big silly

You had a choice -- do something that you believe to be wrong and get your basic needs met in the form of health insurance, or stick to those damn fool principles and risk having no health care.

Maybe you imagined that you lived in a society where you had freedom of conscience or something!

Something like the right to privacy, perhaps.

Up here in the frozen northern wasteland, an employer who asked whether you were married to the spouse you were enrolling in the workplace supplemental insurance plan (for things like dental not covered by the public plans) would have its ass whupped by a provincial human rights commission in a heartbeat. Well, in a few million heartbeats ... damned litigious rights-asserting Canadians, we constantly have the commissions all clogged up ...

Thanks for the eloquence; the choir appreciates the preaching. ;)

[PurityOfEssence]

91. Messy world, isn't it?

As Hamlet said (and YES that nobody catholic from Stratford probably was the guy who wrote all that): "thus conscience doth make cowards of us all".

I still carry a major medical plan from blue cross for two reasons: should my spouse die, if I didn't have continuing coverage of my own, I would have to get new coverage and perhaps find out that a condition that had developed recently precluded coverage or made premiums prohibitive.
To be able to provide for our children and not lose our house, such coverage is necessary. Meanwhile, I pay sizable amounts for this policy that I never use.

Ideologues are the only ones who keep this dysfunctional system going. The profit motive is not the best engine for all human endeavor; even Richard Nixon knew this, and because of that, he wanted socialized medicine.

Monthly, I pay a hefty premium to blue cross and never claim against it; it's merely to keep me from ever having a moment when I'll be reassessed.

As the recent troubles with GM have shown, our dealing with health simply doesn't work. More than half of personal bankruptcies have a health care component behind them.

More than anything else, the selfishness of the modern American society since the 1980 election focuses far too many people on their personal troubles at the expense of the rest of the roiling humanity that also can't quite gain purchase. Selfishness is good now, as Oliver Stone's Gordon Gekko predicted long ago.

Except for the extremely rich who are sustained by a cruel socialism, the weak are on their own.

[Misunderestimator]

119. Canada has it right... Gays or straights can opt to marry or not.

They are treated equally. Great system.

[Misunderestimator]

118. But your choice gave you BETTER benefits than same-sex benefits...

If I cover my partner under my company's domestic partner program... first, we have to sign papers that in essence prove we are domestic partners, then we have to be together for a period of two years, then when I finally qualify for those benefits, I have to pay taxes on their value, PLUS they are not pre-tax benefits, so I am paying even more taxes than married people. To the tune of about $4,000 to $5,000 per year more.

Straight people at least have a choice to marry and not pay any of that.

That said, I think that domestic partner benefits SHOULD be extended to anyone who chooses not to marry.

Bottom line is that domestic partner benefits are a FAR cry from married benefits, and absolutely NON-EXISTENT on the federal level. Gay people should have the same options as straights, and straights the same options as gays. Gay people should have the option to marry and receive all those great benefits currently denied us, and straight people should have the option to not marry and receive those paltry domestic partner benefits if they prefer them.

[Zhade]

104. For quite a number of poly couples, monogamy is just as bad...

...as marriage is in your eyes.

So, what do you propose for those non-married couplings? Do they also get the rights you want for non-married pairings based on their opinion that monogamy is wrong for them?

[xchrom]

2. then she's right and she and her partner should be covered.

they are not seeking gay partner benefits -- they are seeking the benefits that should be offered to all employees REGARDLESS of orientation.

[zreosumgame]

11. not really, she CHOOSES not to marry

while LBGT folks are BANNED from marriage.

[xchrom]

29. not the point.

we want the chance to make the SAME choices as she has.

[zreosumgame]

37. that IS the point

and it was the point I made...DUHHHHHHHH

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

64. regardless of sexual orientation is the point.

and will remain the point until nationalized healthcare is the american way.

[Gormy Cuss]

66. Yep.

And here's hoping that both universal health care and gay marriage become reality soon.

[zreosumgame]

129. sorry for my part in this exchange

FYI 'dipso' is short for dipsomaniac (a drunk) and it looks like I was right on target :)

[adamuu]

17. i agree

hopefully this is where the whole thing is headed
what are they afraid of, anyway? having to cover one person in your life who is perhaps not quite your lover? he/she would have to be a good friend, as social security numbers and signatures must be exchanged, right? What is the harm in covering your 'closest friend' you live with? why do you need a black and white definition of partner before it counts?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

3. Then she should get married and wow...she'll have even more rights

than those pesky gays with their special rights. Wow, this woman's a tool.

[PetraPooh]

4. WHOA! there...

Perhaps her orientation is to have sex without marriage; so she and her male partner should get benefits. Sounds reasonable to me. One shouldn't be forced into or away from marriage in order to have a partner that is legally recognized.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

6. Well, as far as I'm concerned marriage is just another word for

"legally recognized partnership," so the whole thing is just a matter of semantics, not being forced into or away from marriage. And "sex without marriage" is not a sexual orientation, it's just an activity which many people engage in.

[zreosumgame]

12. that is a choice then

and living with the results of your choices is YOUR problem

[Allenberg]

5. That's one thing I like about my company.

I work for Countrywide Financial, and they offer benefits regardless of gender under "domestic partnership."

:)

[JoFerret]

7. Get married

It's legal. And then support lesbian/ gay people's rights to the same legal/ civil rights affored by the civil union called marriage.

[wellst0nev0ter]

15. And If Ya Get Bored, Get A Divorce

both seem to be handed out like candy to any heteros these days.

[mike_c]

8. on the face of it I agree with her....

The fact that Washington doesn't permit gays to marry is coincidental. The proper relief for THAT problem is to allow anyone to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. If we're going to "fix" the problem by creating another class of benefits, then those benefits should be available to all. This is a really simple issue-- if you want to restrict benefits to married couples but don't want to discriminate against gays, then allow gays to marry just like anyone else. Otherwise give everyone the benefits.

[Kiouni]

9. i live with my Girlfriend

and that would be pretty nice. Will it happen? I don't know but the more i think it might be easier just to get married then to switch genders i don't know i'll think about it with a bottle of jack and get back to you.

[Kailassa]

10. There are two issues here.

One is that a person doing this may have been put up to it in order to attack
gay rights by saying that if gay's have a right, so should everyone else.
In a society where the position of gay people is so fragile, it is not an ethical
fight, because it is so likely to backfire on gays.

However, I do believe the government should get out of the whole marriage business.
Marriage is a religious institution, so as long as the government gives people
rights because they have been officially married, the church and the state are not
separate.

So the second issue is that benefits and obligations that resolve around marriage
should be as easily available to those in a "common law marriage" as to those who
have been married officially.

Marriage is a wonderful tradition, which deserves to be respected and celebrated,
but it should not have to be official.

Any couple who are:
(a) living together
(b) either have a child together or have lived together for one year, and
(c) consider themselves married
should be considered married by society, and be eligible for all the rights
any other married couple has.

[hedgehog]

14. Marriage is both a civil and religious institution.

Long before religion came into the picture, marriage was a way to determine parental responsibility and to divvy up family property. That's why so much was made of the status of "bastards." Even for Christians, marriage has only slowly developed as a religious event. Some denominations consider it a sacrament, others do not even though they do have a religious wedding ceremony.

[adamuu]

18. well said N/T

[purduejake]

24. I know married people who aren't living together...

And they get "special" rights because they are straight. Living together shouldn't necessarily be a requirement for domestic partnership or marriage.

[Kailassa]

26. Perhaps not, but

How would you prove a domestic partnership if the partners
are neither legally married nor living together?

[purduejake]

109. Marriage certificate, letter from church, sworn statements from

friends, whatever. It's sad discrimination exists... I shouldn't be finding other ways for gays to get the same rights as others. Everybody should be equal, period and I'm sure we all agree with that =)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. Your (a), (b), and (c) are actually the law of the land in Brazil. -nt

[Kailassa]

44. Well, I was just trying to work out a common-sense way

to handle things.
It's good to see It's already working somewhere, thanks.
:-)

[leQ]

45. well said! (eom)

[Zhade]

99. Marriage is not always a religious institution.

Or are you of the view that atheist marriages aren't really marriages?

Think about it carefully.

[Critters2]

143. I've always said the two aspects should be dealt with separately

I hate that I act as an agent of the state when I officiate at what I consider a religious rite. In some European countries, one has a religious ceremony and at another time is married before a judge/magistrate/gov't official. If one only chooses to have one ceremony (church or state) one is only married in the eyes of that institution.

The divorce process (thanks to lawyers) made our divorce much more bitter and acrimonious than it started out. I'd really like, if I should marry again, to have my marriage recognized by my religious community, but not by the state. That way, if, God forbid, it should end, we could work out the details ourselves, without courts, etc.

Yes, I believe atheist marriages are marriages. And church marriages are marriages. I just wish the state would butt out!

[laundry_queen]

166. This part bears repeating:

Any couple who are:
(a) living together
(b) either have a child together or have lived together for one year, and
(c) consider themselves married
should be considered married by society, and be eligible for all the rights
any other married couple has.

And as a Canadian, that's how it worked for our secondary health benefits through dh's employer. I don't see what the big deal is. No one should forced to be married, and no one should be prohibited from being married. Period.

[hedgehog]

13. You can have any kind of ceremony you want if you're straight.

Any woman who doesn't insist on being married is letting herself in for all kinds of grief should anything happen to the relationship or the man. I have actually known of two cases where the live-in wife did not get survivor's benefits. Those benefits went to the wife the guy hadn't divorced yet. Does anyone know what survivor's rights children have if their parents weren't married?

[Spangle]

23. With the children

Generaly it doesn't matter if the parents where married. Just that it can be proven they are his/her child.

[JI7]

16. does she not understand that the reason for this is because gays can't

get married. so all these alternative laws are in place to take care of some of the rights. she sounds stupid.

[iverglas]

19. what the fuck is wrong with a lot of you people??

To start with -- this is seriously telling me that companies (governments) may discriminate against couples based on their marital status??

I knew your country was a backward hellhole, but goddamn it, I never cease to be surprised at how backward.

Essentially, same-sex couples in Canada got spousal benefits (private/employment-based insurance benefits, public pension/survivor benefits, etc.) BECAUSE unmarried opposite-sex couples already had them, before same-sex marriage came onto the scene. It was unlawful to discriminate against non-married opposite-sex couples first.

This tends to be how the expansion of rights works: when the issue is equality, it falls to the people being treated unequally in a particular circumstance, and the order of the links in the chain may vary.

So should the unmarried same-sex couples who came along and demanded the same rights as unmarried opposite-sex couples have been castigated the way this woman is being castigated here? I dunno; if the "logic" being applied in this thread works, then I'm sure that would have been just as rational.

Yes, not marrying is a choice -- IN SOME CASES. In some cases, there are impediments to people marrying, like previous marriages. If someone who is still married, say, has a child with a new partner before being divorced, the new partner could be left without health care coverage the way things seem to be.

And so the fuck what if not marrying is a choice? Whose business is that choice? What the hell difference does it make to *you* if *I* choose not to get married to the person I share my life with and make commitments to? I would imagine that not-married couples have responsibilities to each other and their children in the US, things like support obligations. Why should they not be able to provide for those obligations through employment-based insurance and survivor benefits?

I am not married and I will never marry. I regard the entire matter as utterly distasteful: a licence to have sex and an announcement to the world at large that I am having sex with so-and-so. Yech. Absolutely nobody's business but my own and anyone I happen to choose to tell. Apart from the yech factor, marriage is essentially nothing more than an arrangement for controlling women's sexuality and women, and perpetuating property interests. I have never wanted any part of it.

I have got over the betrayal I initially felt when the gay and lesbian community began demanding marriage rights. Back in my day, that wasn't exactly a progressive demand: hey, we want to play at patriarchy too! Quite apart from getting my heart and my head working together -- my own yech response is of absolutely no relevance when it comes to someone else's equality rights -- I think that we are seeing and will continue to see a transformation of the entire institution by redefining it this way, and that this will be to all our benefit.

Ultimately I do hope that my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters will lose interest in the whole silly thing, just as those of us who have never had to fight for it are doing. (In Canada, and especially in good old Roman Catholic Quebec, the proportion of couples choosing not to marry just keeps growing.)

In the meantime -- and especially since I very much doubt that *every* gay or lesbian couple who are entitled to marriage-equivalent benefits would choose to marry if they could and thus is being denied married-couple benefits purely because of the prohibition on marrying -- let's just keep the senseless bashing down, if we could.

This woman is as entitled to arrange her private life as she chooses as anyone else is. The assumption that she is prompted by some sort of backlash against same-sex couple benefits when she claims equal entitlement is entirely unwarranted and ... well, I'll be polite. It's unseemly.

[xchrom]

30. thank you.

there are some bizzare posts on this thread.

[wicket]

42. Well put

n/t

[Little Star]

46. Good Post! I had no idea how things

worked in Canada. They seem to have a lot of things right up there. Your explanation of why this woman should have benefits is right on.:thumbsup:

[iverglas]

50. ta -- and it ain't just Canada

I don't have the time to do a survey just now, but I'm sure you'll find that all of western Europe works about the same way, in terms of married/not-married opposite-sex couples at least.

It started here as a result of a case that was decided while I was in law school back in the early 70s, in which a woman who had worked her ass off for decades on the family farm was left without a dime on divorce, because it was in his name. The women's movement was very strong here then, and the dominoes started to fall.

In the late 90s, the fed govt changed Canada Pension Plan rules relating to same-sex couples (unmarried, obviously), to bring them into compliance with current interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the 1982 constitution. The CPP is similar to US Social Security: employees and employers (and self-employed) pay in, and it provides retirement pension, death benefits and survivor benefits. Same-sex partners were then included for survivor benefits. Opposite-sex non-married partners had been for quite some time.

But that really wasn't good enough -- there was still inequality. So some same-sex couples challenged the new law, and won.

This is a pretty good backgrounder on the time-line, from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/timeline_canada.html
(lots to read, but this bit is on the point in issue)

Nov. 26, 2004:
The Ontario Court of Appeal rules that gays and lesbians in the province are entitled to survivors' benefits under the Canada Pension Plan dating back to 1985. The class-action lawsuit was filed for gays and lesbians whose partners died before Jan. 1, 1998, the cut-off date for retroactive benefits set by the government in 2000.

1985 was when the equality provisions in the Charter came into effect.

This was a personal victory for George Hislop, a decades-long activist for gay rights who had lost his long-time partner.

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/cpp.htm

"I was very emotional about this decision. I saw many men lose their partners to AIDS during the 80’s and 90’s. They suffered emotionally and financially. I also knew Ronnie Shearer. I know how important he was in George’s life, and how devastating his death was to George. The judge described George as a legend. I said that his life is proof that if you are an iconoclast long enough, you become an icon."
Douglas Elliott, lawyer representing George Hislop and others

[jhrobbins]

51. Actually, marriage does a lot more than what you outlined...

As a gay man in a long term relationship, I could be at the mercy of my partner's family regarding issues of medical directives, legal standing and inheritance, to name a few. If my partner becoms ill and cannot express his wishes (sometimes even if he is able) his family can determine if I am able to visit. They also can make medical decisions without my input. If he were involved in some sort of accident, I would have no legal standing to pursue redress unless they allowed it. Also, even though we have wills, they are often successfully challenged, especially in RED states. This is but a few of the instances where gay and lesbian couples suffer from the denial of marriage. If a civil union would convey these rights, I would support that, but they fall short of this goal.
The institution of marriage certainly is not perfect, but it conveys a host of rights that would cost thousands of dollars to recreate legally.

[iverglas]

57. agreed -- in *your* circumstances

None of those things you outline are the case in Canada, for instance -- specifically *because* the distinction between married and non-married couples has been made virtually nonexistent. Marital status is actually a prohibited ground of discrimination in the private sector and in government programs, under various human rights laws, and such discrimination in legislation is constitutionally prohibited under the equality rights guarantees in the constitution.

So non-married straight couples and individuals here won the rights that non-married gay and lesbian couples and individuals now enjoy in terms of entitlement to services and benefits -- full equality with married couples and individuals.

So when you say:

This is but a few of the instances where gay and lesbian couples suffer from the denial of marriage.

it can just as easily be said that they are instances where *any* non-married couple suffers from the discrimination against couples who choose not to marry, I would think. From the story this thread is about, that's how it appears.

The institution of marriage is not what should "convey a host of rights", it is the existence of a voluntary affectional/family union that can be expected to involve mutual commitments and responsibilities.


(I would just add that the question of whether such unions should include non-sexual partners, e.g. parent-child, aging aunt-caregiver nephew, brother-sister, that sort of thing, is indeed one that has been discussed in Canada and elsewhere. For instance, should everyone simply be able to designate a "significant other" for purposes of public and private benefit plans, income tax exemptions for dependants, and so on? It's a serious question; people in those relationships can have as much commitment and as much responsiblity, and as much need, as sexual partners. The question of multiple-partner relationships is also a serious one, although it could be argued that it is slightly different.)

[ForPeace]

52. I entirely agree

I too have considered it discriminatory that hetero unmarried couples can't have the same rights as gay unmarried couples.

There are so many gotchas in this marriage business. I was married for 27 years to a great man who died of lung cancer four years ago. I don't want to spend the rest of my life alone, but found out that if I remarry before 60 I lose all claim on his social security benefits and I would also lose the medical insurance that he worked so hard to earn for us if I remarry before I'm 69. At the same time my new boyfriend and I now have no rights in our relationship - no hospital visitation, no inheritance rights - we are as left out as gays are. There must be many other couples in this position. I would have to give up some rights to gain others and it's a balancing act.

[iverglas]

59. aargh

It's painful to hear those stories, just as it is painful to hear stories like George Hislop's (see my post about same-sex partner pension benefits in Canada).

None of this is the case in Canada. No survivor benefits are lost when survivors form new relationships, married or not.

The net effect of denying a widow her survivor benefits if she marries is to enforce women's economic dependence on men. At present, many such women were indeed dependent on their husbands, and that's why they need the survivor benefits now; and in the concept of marriage as a partnership, they contributed to his benefits too, through their work in the family unit. To take the benefits away if they remarry is just to throw them back into dependant status. (And we know what the pitfalls of economic dependence are for women.)

I think the case that cracked this in Canada was military widows (I see from a Legion site that the change came in 1989 in that case). They lost their husbands' survivor benefits if they remarried. Most of them had been unable to acquire pension plans of their own, of course, by the simple fact of being military wives during the era in question -- which of course included the world wars, at the time this was an issue. The injustice of taking a soldier's widow's pension away was just too much.

[redqueen]

70. Bra-frickin-vo!

:loveya:

[Raine]

87. Well said, THANK YOU

I agree completely. Just as no one should be denied marriage no one should feel forced into marriage when they don't want it.

[ckramer]

108. I do not agree with your view on marriage

Your view on marriage is pretty radical, to be honest.

Marriage is not about sex. (although sex is part of it)

Marriage is about community recognition and legal rights.





Democrats do not want to be seen as anti-marriage. It's political suicide.

[iverglas]

115. And . I . don't . care -- and to quote the Supreme Court of Canada:

more specifically, the estimable Madam Justice Bertha Tremblay, writing in R. v. Morgentaler, the judgment that struck down the abortion restrictions in the Criminal Code of Canada ... who was quoting that fine old liberal, John Stuart Mill:

I believe that the framers of the Constitution in guaranteeing "liberty" as a fundamental value in a free and democratic society had in mind the freedom of the individual to develop and realize his potential to the full, to plan his own life to suit his own character, to make his own choices for good or ill, to be non-conformist, idiosyncratic and even eccentric -- to be, in to-day's parlance, "his own person" and accountable as such. John Stuart Mill described it as "pursuing our own good in our own way". This, he believed, we should be free to do "so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it". He added:

Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve the personal decisions made by its citizens; it does, however, require the state to respect them.

Some people want to be able to marry in order to gain the benefits of marriage --

Marriage is about community recognition and legal rights.

Some people want to be able NOT to marry, without being denied legal rights that others have.

You're free to think what you want about marriage, and I'm free to think what I want about marriage. What I think happens to be based on centuries of history. What you think is based on a particular social context in a particular time and place.

Liberty is wonderful. We are both free to consider whatever we like in forming our opinions, and in matters of conscience, to plan our own lives to suit our own character.

I have not attempted to impose my wishes regarding marriage on anyone else. That would be the difference between me and someone who insists that if people want the social and economic benefits associated with committed couple relationships, they must adhere to an institution that, unlike you and for perfectly good reasons, they regard as offensive.

Democrats do not want to be seen as anti-marriage. It's political suicide.

Bully for Demcrats. Did this have something to do with anything I said? I don't think so.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

147. yeah, and I'm not a member of the clergy, either

I'm sitting here gobsmacked over that one. Such Christian charity on display here ...

And what was that one about not bearing false witness?

[REP]

114. A-Fucking-Men

What you said about not marrying: I've said it myself more than once. Instead of saying it again, I'll just give you :thumbs up:

[goodhue]

151. you bet

Marriage should not be the litmus test for domestic partner benefits. And sexual orientation likewise should be a nonfactor.

[Ms. Toad]

157. From a purely legal standpoint,

Yes. Marital status is not a protected class (on the federal level, at least). The government, landlords, employers, etc. are free to discriminate on the basis of marital status.

[Bill McBlueState]

20. Makes sense to me.

People deserve equal protection under the law regardless of orientation. If marriage is required to obtain a benefit, then all people should be allowed to marry. If marriage is not required to obtain a benefit, then nobody should have to marry to obtain the benefit.

[adamuu]

21. exactly. that is the root of the problem.

Government wants to offer an special incentive to be legally married. Why? This is equivalent to mandating a punishment for being single, being in an alternative relationship, or being in a straight relationship that doesn't fit into the imagination of the lawmakers.

[ForPeace]

55. Not always

The government wants to discourage re-marriage by denying SS benefits to widows who remarry. If there's money involved their "morality" goes out the window.

[sofa king]

25. Or,

leave marriage for the churches and make the business end of marriage a separate two-adult financial revenue sharing contract. Don't give benefits to anyone who doesn't have a contract, and don't ask if they're married.

[Kailassa]

27. These days many married people don't share funds at all.

And there are others who don't have funds to share.

[Zhade]

106. Why 2-adult? Do poly couples not deserve the same rights?

I'm not poly myself, but I've known wonderful polygamous folks - should they also be left out in the cold?

[northzax]

170. frankly, yes

you get to sign an exclusive contract with one other person at a time. this has several good reasons. First: benefits. as mentioned, there are survivor's benefits for things like pensions and social security. do you split them among two or more people? what about power of attorney? if you have two wives (or husbands) and they can't agree, who decides? someone always has to have more power, or decisions don't get made. people die without wills, get into medical trouble without granting powers of attorney, shouldn't happen, but it does. the one on one contract leaves many of these decisions and benefits in the hands of one person, if they aren't specifically granted to someone else.

you can live with as many people as you want (and they want) but you can only sign the contract, and get the extant benefits, for one person. Think about something like employer provided health insurance. my employer would put my spouse (or domestic partner, by the way) on my health insurance for $20/month. that insurance costs them $350/month. if I am married to two people, do they have to now spend $660 to insure them both? seems unfair.

[Zhade]

105. *This* is why I love DU.

You expressed it so clearly that it clicked for this divorced biqueer guy.

I get it now. And I fully agree with you. Well-said!

[Spangle]

22. Good Idea! Actually

I'm serous. Don't hang me yet. Yes, she might be out to stab gay rights.

There are really 2 issues with gay marriage. One is some people have "moral"issues. But the other, it has to do with money. And I really think that is a big one. The GOP caters to the radical right and their 'issues' only if it will not cost the GOP types money. For them, it really is about the money, not 'morality issues.'

With marriage comes all the legel wedded rights. Which includes medical insurance. It is in the best intrest of groups (employeers) to limit who can get on/in the group plan. The only way to get on the employee insurance plan is to be the emplyee, SPOUSE or child of the employee. So long as gays can not become a 'legel spouse' then the companys were able to deny insurance to partners. Right?

The tide is changing. People are becoming more aware of a whole group of people are being denied basic rights that others have. This is just one of them.

The thing is, if gays ar enot allowed civil unions (at the least) or government certified marrages, then it can not really be proven that it's a long term commited relationship. WHAT would the be markers for that? Lenght of time together? Please, some wedded couples don't stay together very long. But yet they qualify for insurance as soon as they say "i do."

A marriage is a legel contract that is a pain in the butt to get out off. It generaly makes people stop and think, before jumping into it for stuff like insurance, etc. But living together? EAsier to break away from.

Hence, that pretty much leaves it open for anyone to apply for the right to insurance benifits based upon being a 'partner.' Straight couples who don't believe in the legel goverenment ties really should be elgible. There is no longer an excuse for them not to be. Like wise, what about roommates, etc.

This is going to hit the pocket book of companys. And I know the first thing I'm going to say when I hear someone complain about it. Well.. this all started because some stupid people thought gays shouldn't have the right to get married.

Another words, it might be smarter and cheaper if they would just admit that gays have the RIGHT to sign a marriage contract like every other couple.

[iverglas]

34. the pocket book of companies

Actually, employees pay for their benefits. They earn them. The employers' "contributions" are part of the employees' compensation packages, paid for by the labour they perform.

All employees do the same work, be they married, not married, parents, not parents, whatever. Their contributions, in the form of labour, are pooled and used for the employer's share of the cost of benefits. Some employees benefit from those contributions more than others, depending on their health, family composition, whether they experience disabilities, etc. That's the nature of group coverage of risks.

I don't understand why someone who has the same family responsibilities as another employee, the only difference being that one is married and one is not, should not be able to benefit from those pooled contributions.

It should be noted that health insurance is not the only issue. (And obviously my own opinion is that health insurance should be universal and publicly funded and administered.) There are benefits like bereavement leave, family leave (to care for, say, an unmarried employee's partner's sick child), life insurance, and death benefits and survivor benefits in pension plans, that are all also important to workers.

Recognizing same-sex marriage won't solve the unjustifiable inequality suffered by couples -- whether same-sex or opposite-sex -- who choose not to marry or are unable to marry.

[Casper]

28. It's a diversion

We're being distracted from the real issue here. Why should our marital status; sexual orientation; contractural obligations; or employment status have anything whatsoever to do with our ability to secure health care?

As long as they have us outraged about gay marriage, civil unions, and benefit-less jobs we won't be demanding reasonable access to quality healthcare.

Let's remove the health care and financial (taxes, discounts, etc) aspects of marriage. Then we can talk about having the right to enter into a relationship with someone of your choice. Like others above, I think the government should get out of the marriage business - leave that to the churches.

But, for crying out loud, lets focus people - access to affordable health care for all.

[xchrom]

31. sorry -- marriage equality isn't going on my list

as subservient to another issue.

[mongo]

41. Ok -- I'm involved in a relationship with 2 other people

one of which is my legally married wife. We are all in love with each other and are making plans to co-habitate.

Should we all be allowed to legally marry each other? Where exactly does your "marriage equality" end?

Should one of us be allowed to list the other 2 as spouses on a marriage form?

[xchrom]

48. lol -- huh?

i have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[Kailassa]

54. Why not? Provided all involved are old enough to be legally married.

Any benefits a parner might get could be split equally between all partners.

I was in a 3-way relationship at one stage, and it worked fine and hurt no-one.
It was the perfect answer to my husband lying to cover his absences when he
was having an affair. I found the "other women" and arranged for her to move
in with us.

That's what comes of reading the bible too much when I was young. There is
Nothing prudish about that book when read in its entirety.
I'd learned from it about concubines, and thus saw no reason why my husband
shouldn't have one. Of course I enjoyed similar rights myself. ;-)

As for one partner listing the other two on the marriage form, to make it legal
all three should be listing the other two on the form.

[mongo]

40. Well said. N/T

[Kailassa]

47. Yes, a country is not civilized if its citizens are denied

basic health care.

When I was a child I watched kids in my home town gradually dying of "a hole in the heart", because inbreeding in this remote little saw-milling town had made this a common disorder. The parents had no money to pay for the necessary operations, and no confidence or leverage to get charitable help. So kids just grew up accepting that they or their friends were dying, and nothing could be done about it.

When we got medicare, (this is in Australia,) all this changed, and the kids from that town don't die young any more. Being healthier, they also were able to work harder and become better educated, and became more mobile, so the town no longer suffers from the inbreeding that caused the problem.

The strange thing is that even with free hospital and medical care, and very cheap pharmaceuticals, for all who are on a low income, (and that low income has still been enough for me to buy a house on,) the government here still spends less per head on health-care than the American government does.

And health care pays off long term, and healthy people work and study harder, raise kids with better prospects, and feel more part of society. And ailments are much cheaper to treat in their early stages than later on.

[Fierce]

33. This is why the right doesn't want universal health care.

It would take away a big reason some people get married: access to benefits.

[SoCalDem]

36. This is precisely why we NEED universal healthcare

It would take the employer OUT of the "owning-your-life" business.. It's NO business of your boss , WHO you love or live with..

You should be hired to do a specific JOB and be paid to DO that job..

Corporations "providing" healthcare (or not) gives them too much power over your life..and they KNOW it.

Millions of people are "insurance-slaves" to jobs they hate...but dare not leave..

Each employee should have the same benefits..

Until there is universal healthcare, every person should be able to "choose one" to include on their healthcare..(and add children if they have them)

[xchrom]

62. that would be the ideal.

and outside of mega hospitals and pharma -- it would help businesses be more competitive.

and HOPEFULLY it would break up mega hospital intitutions -- because they are doing a terrible job of delivering healthcare -- at least here in norcal.

[fishwax]

71. exactly right

:thumbsup:

[slackmaster]

58. The state cannot discriminate against her because of sexual orientation

Sounds right to me. It's none of the state's business whether or not she has sex with, or marries, her partner.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noonwitch]

61. She can get married legally, gay couples cannot.

That is why some companies recognize gay couples. If gay marriage was legal, then they would be required to get married to get benefits.

I really don't think companies should be rewarding straight couples for shacking up.

[slackmaster]

63. Why should she be forced to marry to be eligible for benefits?

It makes no sense to me.

If gay marriage was legal, then they would be required to get married to get benefits.

Sez who?

I really don't think companies should be rewarding straight couples for shacking up.

One could just as easily say "I really don't think companies should be rewarding gay couples for shacking up." The issue is fairness, not "rewarding" people for personal behavior.

[xchrom]

67. that's what's scary about some of these posts.

now we're gonna FORCE folk into marriage who don't wanna be?

i'd just like the right to get married IF I CHOOSE, but she should be elligible for partner benefits -- for fucks sake.

the lgbtq community fought for those benefits with the idea that sexual orientation didn't matter.

[iverglas]

65. "rewarding"????

I really don't think companies should be rewarding straight couples for shacking up.

What corporatist fantasy are we living out here?

Employees PAY FOR their benefits. Where on earth do you imagine that companies get the money they use to fund those benefits? Thin air? How about: by selling the goods and services produced by the employees?

Would it be okay if companies declined to pay wages to employees who chose not to get married, too? How about if you only get paid vacation if you're married? How about if those who are "shacked up" need not even bother applying?

Apart from that, what do you imagine it matters what your opinion -- or an employer's opinion, or anyone else's opinion -- about "shacking up" might be?

When was it the role of an employer to "reward" anyone for anything other than DOING THEIR JOB? When did employers become arbiters of what people should be "rewarded" for in matters that are none of the employer's or anyone else's business?

(For "reward", read "treat equally", of course.)

[Raine]

111. Just cause you're straight

why should you be required to marry, that doesn't make sense.

[Nikki Stone 1]

68. Actually, I don't understand why I can't put my aging mom on my insurance

if she needs the health care. Why is it only the people you are having sex with (or the product of that sexual union) that can be designated on my health insurance?

I am serious by the way. No offense to anyone.

[iverglas]

73. it is a serious question

On a very quick google, here's a snippet from the brief fhat the Canadian Auto Workers submitted to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2005:

http://caw.ca/whatwedo/humanrights/pdf/humanrightsandfamilysubmission.pdf
("family status" is a prohibited ground of discrimination)

The current definition of "family status" is the status of being in a parent and child relationship. Along with "marital status", most interdependent relationships are covered. However, as the discussion paper sets out, increasingly there are interdependent relationships beyond what is covered by these two terms.

The CAW supports a broadening of the definition of "family status" to capture other dependent relationships. We also support the training of commission staff and the education of the public to understand the intersection of discrimination, in particular the intersection of family status with sex, race and marital status.

The CAW recognizes that this consultation goes beyond a narrow examination of discrimination based on a parent-child relationship. The discussion paper rightly casts a wider eye to the interaction of different grounds of discrimination with subtle, and not so subtle, societal pressures which come together to result in different participation opportunities for workers who have interdependent relationships.

The CAW wants to be part of a solution-driven process which results in a society where workers in different family structures are supported.

The union places considerable stress on the fact that caregiving falls mainly to women.

Here's a snippet from the invitation to participate in the consultation that the Ontario Human Rights Commission put out:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/consultations/family-status-discussion-questionaire.shtml

The Commission is seeking to understand how an individual’s family relationships affect his or her access to employment, housing, and services. The Commission has therefore prepared this questionnaire to enable family members to share their experiences. With this questionnaire, the Commission is seeking personal accounts of actual experiences, rather than the collective knowledge or expertise of organizations, advocates and researchers. The Commission will use these stories to identify key issues for further consultation and policy development.

and here's the discussion paper:

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/english/consultations/family-status-discussion-paper.shtml

Heh. Here's another response:

http://www.oecta.on.ca/pdfs/humanrightsresponse.pdf

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association applauds the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision to examine the issue of discrimination as it relates to family status. The increasing complexity of Ontario society has brought with it enormous changes to the family. It is time that the effects of these changes are reviewed and practices which may be or are discriminatory changed.

The Ontario Human Rights Code definition of family status must be broadened to include dependency relationships such as caring for disabled adults, providing eldercare, caring for unrelated persons who are part of our extended families or who have a close personal relationship to us. The broadening of the definition would do much to capture the nuances of family relationships in Ontario's multicultural society.

There ya go. When discrimination is eliminated, there are some surprising beneficiaries. Non-married couples and same-sex couples get recognized, and celibate English Catholic school teachers caring for their aged parents might be next. ;)

[Nikki Stone 1]

77. This is why we love Canada

This is such a humane idea.

I have read all your posts on this thread and am really struck by how judgemental we end up being about what constitutes a legal family in US. I am particularly concerned about caregiver relationships. I have watched my cousins try to care for their sick parents and Social Security just doesn't cut it. Prescription meds have been "privatized" and hence limited, and there is often no coverage for extra help when the caregiver just gets too damned tired. It is amazing how much people have to rely on volunteer help from friends and family, and often these people are working full time jobs and can't make much of a time committment. And yes, most caregivers are female-=-sisters, daughters, mothers, etc. although there are some men out there who end up being the primary caregiver.

Sorry, rambling.

[iverglas]

79. we try to light the way!

But really, we're as bad as you guys in some respects. A huge majority of USAmericans have no clue about how things are done right next door, in this and so many other areas.

But as many Canadians don't know that things are done better in other places than we do them. We get so wrapped up in complacency about how we do things so much better than they're done in the US, which we undeniably do, that we seldom lift our gaze and look even as far as Europe -- which tends to be decades ahead of us in areas like childcare and worker rights. (Not that they're not losing ground, of course.)

Here's another thing I ran across that you might find interesting:

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2006/20060628/html/sor135-e.html
-- an amendment to unemployment insurance regulations (which we now cleverly call employment insurance, yech), June 2006

Description

The amendment is to put in place a regulatory change that will modify the eligibility criteria of the Employment Insurance (EI) Compassionate Care Benefit (CCB) in order to enable additional family members and others considered as "family" by the gravely ill individual to be eligible for the benefit for the purposes of caregiving.

The EI CCB which was put in place in January 2004, recognizes the demands of caring for a gravely ill family member and the implications for the economic and job security of Canadians. Under the CCB, up to six weeks of EI income benefits are available to eligible workers taking a temporary absence from work to provide care for a gravely ill family member who has significant risk of death in the next 26 weeks. The six weeks can be shared among eligible family members or can be taken by one eligible family member. This gives families more choices in providing care to gravely ill Canadians. The Canada Labour Code was also amended to provide the necessary job protection for CCB claimants.

(Unfortunately, the Canada Labour Code covers only a small fraction of Cdn workers.)

The CCB presently recognizes three main family relationships – parents, children and spouses/common-law partners. The design of the benefit was based on research and analysis indicating that family members are key caregivers and in particular, that the majority of Canadians (90-95%) caring in these situations are caring for a child, parent or spouse.

... This review found that a small but important number of people (5-10% of caregivers) are ineligible for CCB because they are excluded from the current definition of family member. Expanding the definition of family member will help ensure that additional caregivers are able to get access to income support when they must leave work to care for a gravely ill person.

The definition was expanded to cover a load of other relationships: stepsibling, grandparent/child ... hmm, how 'bout this one?

(f) the spouse or common-law partner of a child of the individual's parent or of a child of the spouse or common-law partner of the individual's parent;

This doesn't cover private or public sector benefit plans, but it's a step.

[marshall]

126. Take the sex out of domestic partnerships

I totally agree. Why should the state only recognize and sanction domestic partnerships that involve the two partners having sex with each other? In the postmoadern world if Queer Studies can take the sexuality out of social critique why can't the state take the sexuality out of domestic partnerships?

[Critters2]

144. I have a good friend, also a woman, who has never married

She owns her mother's old house. I, having lived in church-provided housing my whole career, will not own a home and may have trouble purchasing one come retirement. We've decided that, if we are both still single when we reach retirement age, we'll live together in her mother's home. May invite my disabled brother to move in, too. She's completely straight and more religiously conservative than me--it'll be a platonic friendship. I'll have more in my pension than her--because my denomination requires churches pay more in than her does, and because I've been in ministry longer--and would love for her to be able to be a partner in my benefits because it seems the right thing to do (if she lets me live in her house).

We've talked often about the fact that our not sleeping together will be an impediment to creating the kind of household that seems fair to us. We've acknowledged that people will probably think we're sleeping together, and have even considered using that assumption to gain benefits my denomination gives to same-sex partners. My friend has too much integrity for that. Damn!

Still, I think these are fair questions. Why can't a household be what its members say it is?

[dsc]

69. I don't have a lot of sympathy for her

She has the choice to get married but evidently doesn't value her relationship enough to do so. I don't think insurance should be dependent upon employers but it is. As long as it is, this will make these benefits way more expensive than they currently are and thus companies far less likely to grant them. I have repeatedly heard, as an argument against granting same sex benefits the argument that they discriminate against unmarried straight couples. Discrimination is treating people in the same or equivalent, situations differently. Here the people are in very different situations.

[iverglas]

75. and I'll bet she cares a whole lot

She has the choice to get married but evidently doesn't value her relationship enough to do so.

Got any more gossip based on your own nasty prejudices that you'd like to treat us to?

Dog forbid you should read anything else in the thread and maybe learn something that might help you to get over them.

Discrimination is treating people in the same or equivalent, situations differently. Here the people are in very different situations.

Maybe you can tell us which law school you teach at, and then we could all write to the person in charge and suggest that you be retrained.

Discrimination is about treating people differently on grounds unrelated to the situation.

Cohabiting married couples and cohabiting not-married couples, per you, are in very different situations. Presumably, therefore, an employer could refuse not just to allow them access to benefit packages, but to hire them in the first place. After all, they are in very different situations.

That's the wonderful thing about RIGHTS. Your uninformed opinion about the people who have them is of the most supreme insignificance, and it just doesn't matter a pinch of poop whether people like you, in all their self-absorbed and self-important glory, sympathize with the people who have them or not.

[dsc]

112. I am glad Canada went the way it did

but here, every single time, without exception, that a state or locality wanted to start offering benefits to gay couples the right wing would start harping on the unfairness to unmarried straights. You could set your watch by it. Then the locality had two choices, one offer much more expensive benefits to literally anyone who claimed a relationship no matter how tenuous or not offer the benefits at all. You can guess which happened most often.


Straight people have the right to marry. Probability suggests she doesn't think I should have that right, though admittedly I don't know. Bet either way, her actions will derail these benefits as sure as I am typing this. All because she refuses, even though she can, to get married and wants to be treated the same as people who can't.

As to your definition of discrimination I suggest you look up right to work laws. I have no idea how Canada's laws work in this regard but aside from a small list of things, people can, and do, get fired or refused jobs for a host of things unrelated to the situation. To take one fairly famous example. Ross Perot disliked facial hair. No one working for his company was permitted to have facial hair.

[dsc]

127. One other observation

She has been in this situation for nearly 2 decades, yet now she sues. She didn't sue when straight couples were being treated better than she was, only when gays in Washington managed to get something. That is telling to me.

It would be one thing if unmarried couples were publicly working to help out on this issue the whole time. That isn't the case.

[iverglas]

128. what's it telling you?

She has been in this situation for nearly 2 decades, yet now she sues. She didn't sue when straight couples were being treated better than she was, only when gays in Washington managed to get something. That is telling to me.

Here's what it is actually telling you.

Prior to the enactment of the new legislation, SHE HAD NO GROUNDS TO SUE.

Unlike Canada, US states do not prohibit discrimination in employment on the ground of "family status". SHE HAD NO GROUNDS to complain that as a partner in an unmarried couple she was treated less advantageously than a partner in a married couple.

The new legislation prohibits discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

Her employer provides benefits to married couples and to non-married same sex couples but NOT to non-married opposite-sex couples.

This is discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

I don't know how it could be much clearer.

It is the STATE LAW that discriminates against gay and lesbian people by prohibiting them from marrying.

It is the EMPLOYER that is discriminating against this employee -- unlawfully, under state law -- by denying her the same benefits as someone else, based on sexual orientation.

Her action has NOTHING TO DO with the state law that discriminates against same-sex couples by prohibiting them from marrying.

It would be one thing if unmarried couples were publicly working to help out on this issue the whole time. That isn't the case.

What the hell is this noise you're making?

*I* am part of a non-married couple.

*I* am a member of, and have been a candidate for, a party that has long worked for equality for the GLBT community, including but by no means limited to making same-sex marriage legally recognized.

*I* have been active in equality-rights causes for DECADES, including by being legal counsel to a local gay and lesbian rights organization.

When one of my party's MPs voted against legislation formally recognizing the right of same-sex marriage last year, *I* urged my party to expel her.

I am quite sure that you will find that the exact opposite of what you say is true -- that people who feel strongly about their own right to organize their own personal lives as they see fit are MORE likely to be supportive of other people seeking the same right.

At least where I come from.

I'm seeing that from every single poster here supporting the right of non-married couples to equal treatment in employment ... but I'm just not seeing it quite so consistently from posters here supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Odd, that.

[dsc]

130. Canada is different

which I acknowledge, but here in the states unmarried straights haven't been working for gay rights in any appreciable numbers. These anti marriage amendments have racked up over 70% of the total vote and thus probably 75% of the straight vote in all but one state they have been offered in. They may, though neither of us know, be more likely to vote for gay rights than married counter parts, but they can't be that much more likely or the numbers would be very different than they currently are. If even a bare majority of straight, unmarried people, were voting against these amendments there is no way that the percentage voting against would be as low as 20%, as it has been in many states.

[iverglas]

131. hold on

If even a bare majority of straight, unmarried people, were voting against these amendments there is no way that the percentage voting against would be as low as 20%, as it has been in many states.

*Nobody* is talking about "straight, unmarried people".

We are talking about partners in non-married opposite-sex couples. *They* are the ones being vilified in this thread for wanting the same benefits as partners in non-married same-sex couples in a US state, and being accused of being hostile to same-sex marriage rights.

So before you go levelling accusations, you might want to find out what the rate of couples cohabiting without marriage is in the parts of the US you're talking about, just for starters.

It seems rather counter-intuitive to me to suggest that a group that is probably, overall, younger and less religious than the population at large would be unsupportive of same-sex marriage rights.

Opposite-sex couples cohabit without marriage for a variety of reasons. The people we're talking about here are people who have conscientious objections to participating in the institution, mainly. I have no idea why anyone would assume that people like that would be voting against same-sex marriage rights.

Certainly no one in this thread who is cohabiting without marriage (or would be if s/he had not found the consequences of that choice intolerable) has expressed any such opposition.

[dsc]

155. actually they may well not be younger

since pensions and alimony both often demand recipients not to remarry. I will grant they may be less religious but one doesn't need to be religious to be bigotted toward gays. If you count anyone who has ever been in that position, as opposed to anyone in that position at a particular point in time, then a quite large percentage of voters would fall into that class.

[iverglas]

140. here ya go

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003224314_domestic25m.html

He said a recent Hewitt Associates study found that among the companies that offer such benefits, 58 percent extended them to both gay and straight employees.

That's in part because demand is growing.

Census estimates show that nearly 36,000 heterosexual couples in Washington lived together without being married, while 17,000 gay and lesbian couples shared a home.

Marra, the Seattle lawyer, said he's been telling clients when they ask that under the state's sexual-orientation law, if they're going to give benefits to employees in a same-sex relationship they have to be sure they're giving them to all.

Now we need to survey those opposite-sex non-married couples and find out what their position is ...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. LOL.

Reminds me of the dead beat dads that want a right to a "male abortion," i.e. the right to stop paying child support.

[HockeyMom]

80. Domestic Partner Benefits

That is the term used by many corporations. It is sexual orientation neutral, which means they are given to both straight and gay partners.

I know a number of large corporations which give these. For one, there is a large software firm here on LI which has given domestic partner benefits for over 10 years (gay and straight). My niece worked for a national office supply chain which did. When her live in boyfriend of then 5 years was laid off from work, she covered him for medical benefits under her insurance. In her case, her partner had to cohabit with her for at least 2 years under the plan.

For all those saying the woman in this case should just get married, I can only say that in my niece's case, it was SHE who didn't want to marry --- YET. She said he asked her many times. When her boyfriend did find work, she quit her job and went back to college. He supported her while she was in school. After she had graduated and worked for 2 years, they got married.

Life is not connecting the dots. It is whatever works for those whose life it is.

[Critters2]

97. And living with (or without) the things your choices bring you. nt

[Pithlet]

134. Yep. I've been the recipient of such benefits.

I'm sure it will shock the sensibilities of more than a few here, but I lived with a man for a few years, and even had a child with him, without being married. And, obviously, I valued our relationship, and still do. It's no one else's business why we chose when to get married and what the circumstances were that may or may not have impeded that choice. We were very fortunate that the domestic partner benefits of the company he was working for at the time didn't care if his partner was a man or a woman. The gap in insurance that would have resulted then would be affecting me today.

I fully support and have worked for equal rights for all. I can't even begin to imagine how painful it is to not be able to marry and enjoy legal benefits with the one you love. But, I'll admit to being just a little perplexed by the responses of some here. If a company is going to provide benefits for the unmarried partners of their employees, then it doesn't make any sense to discriminate against heterosexuals just because they aren't otherwise discriminated against. How would have the company refusing to cover me done anything to advance the cause of equal rights for all? It's very possible the woman who is pushing this issue has a questionable agenda, but it doesn't change the fact that what she's fighting for is the right thing to do. The correct answer to her assertion is that she's right, but not for the reasons she thinks she is. These are rights that should be available to all, and if anything, highlight the reasons why the fight for marriage for all is important.

[iverglas]

138. one thing I find funny

How likely is it that a woman who is publicly declaring her status as a fornicator is some kinda fundie beavering away at getting same-sex partners' rights knocked back to the dark ages?

Hmm.

[Pithlet]

145. Interesting point.

It's possible she's a giant hypocrite. Regardless, I think she has a valid point. It doesn't appear that she's fighting to end those benefits. I would certainly oppose that argument. She seems to be arguing that they should apply to everyone, and I don't see the problem with that. I do understand the "welcome to our world" response from the GLBT community, and can even understand being suspicious of the woman's motives. But, I don't understand the actual opposition to the idea of extending domestic partner benefits to all, with the rationalization that we can get married if we want to.

[iverglas]

81. and commentary from Lambda Legal

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/282225_gayrights23.html

Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for the gay-rights firm Lambda Legal, said similar cases have been raised elsewhere without much success. But the group generally supports efforts that are aimed at ending discrimination, she said.

"It's marital status discrimination. You're telling people, in essence, they will be paid less" because they can't get the same benefits, Pizer said.

Gee. What was I saying?

And my goodness:

Joseph Fuiten, chairman of the conservative Faith and Freedom Network, said opponents of the gay rights measure predicted scenarios such as the Honeywell-related complaint.

I'm minded of the poster on the wall of one of my Vietnam draft resister friends back, oh, 35 years ago -- google finds me the attribution for the first half to George Lukacs; for the whole thing, I get only "from a poster, source unknown" ;) --

Class consciousness is knowing which side of the fence you're on.
Class analysis is knowing who's there with you.

[Nikki Stone 1]

92. Great post!

:)

[iverglas]

156. and here's another thing worth reading

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/07/072706marriage.htm

The group - some 260 national gay leaders - calls for a broader vision in gaining rights for gay families.

... While the document supports efforts to secure marriage equality for LGBT couples, it also states that "marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others".

The signers say that "the struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families".

Oh my. Traitors in the ranks.

Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Jay Smith Brown <said>:

"By advancing domestic partner benefits in corporate America, it's not just same-sex couples, but also unmarried opposite-sex couples, who reap the rewards of workplace equality. In our work against the Federal Marriage Amendment, we underscored the tragic impact that amendments in various states have had on domestic violence laws concerning all unmarried relationships. In short, while work for marriage equality will continue, we also continue to work in other ways that bring needed protections and responsibilities to all families and GLBT individuals."

[MikeyJones]

83. Personally I think special gay benefits are never going to work simply....

because any straight person can claim to be gay. There's no solid way to prove one's sexual orientation whereas one can obviously tell one's race or ethnic group.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

110. Special gay benefits?

Um...this company wouldn't be giving out "special gay benefits" if gay people could get married.

Please enlighten me as to what "special gay benefits" are so I can make sure I'm taking full advantage of the benefits of being a homosexual.

[Raine]

85. I would like that too

my BF tried to get me some health benefits thru his company but they refused. We have been together for years and years and are committed but don't want to get married and don't see as we should have to in order to get some benefits. People shouldn't be forced into a legal arrangment that they don't want to get benefits they should be entitled to if others are.

[buddysmellgood]

100. I think we should first legalize divorce for gay people. Then the bigots

would have to argue that divorce is only between a man and a woman.

[Critters2]

146. Already happened

In Iowa, a lesbian couple in Sioux City had gotten a civil union in VT. They decided to end the relationship and a judge granted them a dissolution. He said he saw it as dissolving a contract--no big deal. The fundies went NUTS!!! They insisted he had granted a divorce in a marriage that the state didn't recognize. Called for the judge to be recalled. Failing that, they worked against him in the next election. They took the case to appeal. The state supreme court threw out the case, saying these fundie group had no standing to bring suit.

So, apparently, they wanted these two women, whom they didn't want getting married in the first place, to stay married.

Just trying to understand the reasoning makes my brain hurt.

[praeclarus]

113. no worries...

... The Corporation is actively working on equal
health benefits for all. Which is to say, none.

Then we won't have to argue about this shtuff anymore.

[Strathos]

116. This is good

This will force people to understand since we can't legally be married and hetero couples want the same benefits that legal marriage for gays is the way to end the dispute.

As for the straight person on here that wants partner benefits, GET MARRIED. You're allowed, we're not!

[iverglas]

123. so many "liberals", so little time

As for the straight person on here that wants partner benefits, GET MARRIED.

WWJSMS?

Check the thread for what John Stuart Mill would say.


edit: oops, it was the same one, saying the same thing ... oh well, it never hurts to ask again.

[Pithlet]

141. Because we're allowed, automatically means we're obligated?

Heterosexuals should have to marry whether they want to because they have the right? I didn't realize right=obligation. Stating "If you want the benefits, just get married!" isn't saying much for the right being fought for. It's not as though benefits are the number one reason most people consider marriage, and it shouldn't be.

No, leaving domestic partners out in the cold because of their sexual orientation, whether hetero or homosexual, will not force people to understand anything. If one is already against gay marriage, they'll probably just think of those benefits as special rights for gays, and they'll feel resentful. If they're like me, who stand on your side, then this will likely just reinforce their opinion that benefits shouldn't be tied to marriage in the first place, but it isn't going to make them change their opinion on the matter of gay marriage. They'll still support it.

If it changes anyone's position, it would likely be those in the middle, where such a move fosters resentment, pushing them further to the right on the issue. Some of these people can be swayed, or we never would have made the progress we have. I think fighting this move could very well do more to hurt the cause of equal rights, and certainly wouldn't help it.

[Strathos]

154. but the fight should be

That no domestic partnerships for anyone. Marriage is the way and why would a hetero couple want partner benefits when they can get married. We want partner benefits because we can not get married and if we could, we wouldn't really need partner benefits.

Is this a circular argument? LOL

[Pithlet]

160. No, I get what you're saying.

The fight should be for equal rights for all. Same sex couples should be allowed to marry just like heterosexual couples, and enjoy all the same benefits. It shouldn't be any different in name or in function. I think the fair and right thing to do would be to simply allow them to marry, rather than working around that by offering separate but "equal" compromises. It's likely there wouldn't be the push to separate specific benefits from marital status if it weren't for the fact that gay marriage is banned in the US.

But, I do think there is merit to the argument that certain crucial benefits, like health care, shouldn't be tied to marriage, and that could easily be a whole separate argument from the issue of gay marriage. There are plenty of people, regardless of sexual orientation, who would benefit from that. As I said in a post upthread, I benefited from a company who offered domestic partner benefits that didn't specify sexual orientation. At the least, I certainly understand the merits to the argument, obviously. So, I don't agree that heterosexuals should be barred from enjoying that separation simply because they have the option to get married. Having the option doesn't mean it's something that's always easily available or desired. In short, I think that any two adults who desire marriage should have it, and, if we're going to separate certain benefits from marital status, that that also be available to any two adults that want it.

[Jawja]

133. So Washington State

does not have the kind of Domestic Partnership benefits that covers BOTH unmarried heteros AND gays?

I thought this was standard; when benefits are extended to same sex unmarried partners, it includes man/woman unmarried partners as well.

Hmmmmm.

[MissMillie]

137. I kind of wonder why some MA companies still offer DP benefits

especially now that we have legal gay marriage in this state....

[Exiled in America]

142. Long thread, but I think many are missing an important point:

I may have missed this response, I tried to read as best I could in the short time I have and I don't think I saw this.

The major argument which includes the point that an unmarried heterosexual couple makes a choice not to marry and thus is not entitled to equivalent benefits is missing an important point I think.

And that is that this kind of lawsuit illustrates some of the deeper problems with the institution of marriage itself - over 1,049 special protections automatically associated with marriage that should be available to any partnering couple. The real problem is that the goverment shouldn't be involved in the business of marriage at all and the benefits currently connected with marriage should be benefits two people could arrange for themselves in whatever way they see fit without the need of a marriage liscence to do so.

People shouldn't be denied health coverage to their families and "families" should be defined in whatever way the individual chooses to define them.

I know, I know - of course people couldn't go up and ask to insure themselves and everyone person in their county by claiming they were all "family." But I don't think its actually that complicated. An individual should be able to designate who their "partner" is - lover, friend, whatever. The state has no business in judging the "sanctity" of that relationship and that partner should be entitled to protections that are now currently connected exclusively to marriage.

[OKIsItJustMe]

158. It's really rather simple

In my case, if I want to carry my partner on my health insurance, we simply need to demonstrate that our relationship includes financial arrangements, by showing things like, joint bank accounts, joint credit cards, mortgages, insurance policies naming the other as beneficiary, etc. etc. etc.

Straight or Gay any non-married couple has the same burden of proof (no more, no less.)

[Exiled in America]

159. You're in a lucky state then

That's not possible in my state.

[Ms. Toad]

162. It's actually a function

of the employer and the insurance companies, not the state. Bug your employer, or if you're self-insured shop the plans.

Ohio is THE most repressive state on GLBT issues (by two recent studies) and several of the major insurance companies offer domestic partner benefits in Ohio - as long as the employer is willing to sponsor the plan.

There appear to be at least four insurance companies offering domestic partner benefits in your state: http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/healthinsurance1/a/aa052204a.htm (The list is incomplete, since I know of two additional major companies in Ohio offering domestic partner coverage which are not listed.)

[Exiled in America]

164. That's not completely correct.

It is a function of the employer, if the employer is not based in the state. So, if I work for HP at the division here in the state, I can enjoy their benefits which are very friendly to same-sex couples, because the company is based in California.

However, I can not get any local insurance through the state - blue cross, or things like that, none of them recognize same sex partners. I'm not talking out of ignorance - I work on these issues for a living.

No major insurance companies offer domestic partner benefits here. Zero. The only way to get them is to be lucky enough to work for a company like HP or something like that. Of the four you linked to - one is denal insurance only. The second offers parter benefits only for one of their programs, the medical savings account, which I do not consider to be actual health insurance. The third is such a horrible microscopic insurance company with impossible obstacles in even getting to a doctor and no network that its pretty unfair to say "hey, no big deal, you can get partner benefits in your state" using that as an example. The fourth has stopped offering partner benefits.

Further more, come november, if the amendment passes, all these will end. The only things remaining will be benefits offerd by companies based outside the state.

[Ms. Toad]

165. As I noted,

the list at the link I originally posted is incomplete - there are (at least) two major providers in Ohio who were not listed at that link, which appears to be a self-reporting site. Here is a more comprehensive list: http://mission.sfgov.org/hrcdpip/CarrierDetail.aspx?cn=&st=ID&pr=Medical&pl=&gs=all

If it doesn't come up with the Idaho list, click on the Domestic Partner Insurance provider search link and have fun. Aetna, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, and Cigna are all on the list. Hope this helps!

I have not found the exact text of Idaho's proposed amendment, but the summary I have found sounds as if it is modeled after Ohio's ("Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage").

The key to reading the relevant portion of the amendment is that creation/recognition is barred with respect to the state and its political subdivisions (the same language I've seen in Idaho's summary). That means private employers will not be affected by the proposed amendment, whether they are in state or not.

My partner still has health care benefits in Ohio post amendment under my private employer plan, and even some State Universities continue to offer family member health care benefits (asserting that family member benefits are not a recognition of a legal status intended to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.) NO ONE is challenging the right of private employers in Ohio to continue to offer domestic partner benefits - even post amendment. The University programs are being challenged, and although I would be disappointed I would not be surprised to see them disappear.

The amendment stinks - and if it passes it will be horrible for the families of anyone employed by the state. But, looking up at the bottom of the shoes that just stomped all over our state and are trying to stomp on yours, it won't impact private employers.

[Nikia]

163. There are many legal rights associated with getting married

Health insurance is just one of those legal rights. Unmarried couples are also denied many other rights. Perhaps these issues haven't come up to the complaining couple.
As far as the health insurance policy, I suppose it depends upon the companies policy and how it is worded.
The law that she is referring to seems to pertain to same sex partners who cannot legally marry and receive other legal protections of married couples.

[Master of Disaster]

168. She is right. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is either

banned or it is not.

[insleeforprez]

169. You know...

if you just allow gay marriage, these technicalities aren't an issue...