DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Domestic Partner Benefits No Longer for Straight Couples

Discuss.

I want to highlight one part of this article:

Others see marriage as a historically oppressive contract, she said, or they choose not to marry in protest of the inequities that same-sex couples experience.

Wright, who identifies herself as bisexual and lives with her same-sex partner in Massachusetts, where gay couples have been able to wed since 2004, said that marriage isn't right for all same-sex couples either.

Yet some employers in the state eliminated their domestic partner benefits programs after same-sex marriage became legal, forcing gay couples to marry to receive a family healthcare plan, she said.

These employers are discriminating against the relationship type and privileging marriage, she said.


So, even marriage may not be enough, and it is "discriminatory" if gay marriage is approved, and the stop gap solution desired by gay couples who could not marry should be the law of the land? Sorry, but I absolutely disagree. Discrimination is thrown around like the word "blue" these days. It is ridiculous. If gay marriage is approved, and benefits for all unmarried couples are then done away with, that is absolutely fair to all ..... but some, like this woman, consider it somehow discrimination. Discrimination is refusing to give you whatever you want.

I wonder what a Black slave, finding freedom for the 1st time after the Civil War, would think about the way the word Discrimination is thrown around by so many today, for so many so called offenses. I bet that he could describe real discrimination, and describe in detail being held down, and having his rights taken from him in so many ways. His story should make many people feel embarrassed about the way they use the word discrimination, but I doubt that it would.

Cleveland's employee domestic partner benefits no longer offered to unmarried straight couples | cleveland.com
http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index....#incart_best-of

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A Cleveland ordinance passed this week, billed as a measure that would offer equal benefits to all city employees, applies only to same-sex couples on the city's domestic partner registry and renders unmarried couples of the opposite sex ineligible for the program.

City Councilman Joe Cimperman, who sponsored the ordinance, says the reason for excluding straight couples is simple -- they can get married in Ohio, while same-sex couples cannot.

But Sarah Wright, board chair of Unmarried Equality, a group that advocates for unmarried people of all sexual orientations, says that the change in Cleveland's law establishes a new set of unfair standards for city workers -- one that discriminates against those who choose to remain unwed for a variety of reasons but consider their partners to be family.

"This is a question of equal benefits for equal work," Wright said in an interview Thursday. "Just because couples can get married, doesn't mean they should be forced to do so for their employer to recognize their relationship as a family unit."

City council created its domestic partner registry in late 2008 to help domestic partners secure insurance in the workplace. The registry was first made available in May 2009, and those registering had to show they were sharing expenses on a long-term basis, using such documents as mortgages or utility bills.

In July 2011, council passed an ordinance that offered family coverage to partners of city workers who had registered with the city by May 1 of that year. Both same-sex and opposite-sex couples were eligible. Cincinnati and Columbus have similar programs.

Cleveland's deadline was later extended to the end of March 2012. Those who missed it would pay nearly $8,000 a year to add a partner.

The new ordinance, which council unanimously approved Monday, eliminates the deadline altogether, allowing registered partners to seek benefits during the open enrollment period in March.

But an amendment to the legislation excluded opposite-sex couples from eligibility.

Cimperman said Thursday that the 2011 law was designed with same-sex couples in mind but included all registrants because the city wanted to avoid creating a special class that could open the city to a lawsuit.

Eventually, other jurisdictions, including the Cuyahoga County government, instituted similar programs and limited them to same-sex couples without facing legal challenges, Cimperman said. So council felt comfortable excluding opposite-sex couples, too, he said.

"It's a matter of equal rights," Cimperman said. "The fact is that people who are straight have the option to get married. We want to make it fair for people who are dealing with legislative oppression. Straight people are not legislatively oppressed. Contrary to what the far right wants you to believe, there is no war on straight America."

But increasingly, family structures are becoming nontraditional, Wright said, and opposite-sex couples remain unwed for many understandable reasons.

People who are widowed might worry that they would lose pension survivor benefits if they remarry or that a new marriage might thwart their estate plans for their adult children, she said.

Others see marriage as a historically oppressive contract, she said, or they choose not to marry in protest of the inequities that same-sex couples experience.

Wright, who identifies herself as bisexual and lives with her same-sex partner in Massachusetts, where gay couples have been able to wed since 2004, said that marriage isn't right for all same-sex couples either.

Yet some employers in the state eliminated their domestic partner benefits programs after same-sex marriage became legal, forcing gay couples to marry to receive a family healthcare plan, she said.

These employers are discriminating against the relationship type and privileging marriage, she said.

"This is what is happening," Wright said. "These are the true unintended consequences of so called 'marriage equality.' What we should be aiming for is marriage neutrality in employment policies. ... What would be ironic and unfortunate is if we enter a new territory where marriage is compulsory. That's insane."

In a 2004 joint statement, a number of gay rights organizations including the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, urged employers in Massachusetts to maintain their benefits for domestic partners, even though the state had legalized gay marriage.

Among their arguments was that "these benefits were originally intended as a way to provide fair and equal treatment to the growing diversity of employees' families, both married and unmarried, and to reduce marital status discrimination."

They encouraged employers, who only offered domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples, to include straight couples, too, rather than eliminate the programs altogether.

And they contended that employers should provide equal pay for equal work. Benefits make up a significant part of employee compensation, they argued. If two employees perform the same job equally well, their eligibility for benefits should not be based on their marital status.

Above all, the statement argues, "If an employer recognizes the value of supporting employees' families, demonstrations of caregiving and emotional and financial interdependence are a more accurate way to define who is 'family' than marriage licenses."

Wright said that if gay marriage becomes legal in Ohio, a possibility as the U.S. Supreme Court deliberates on a landmark case, Cleveland will have to decide whether to eliminate its domestic partner benefits program or open it to couples of all sexual orientations, to recognize nontraditional family structures – and avoid a potential lawsuit.

Cimperman said he hopes the city is faced with that decision sooner, rather than later.

Simple solution if you've seen I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.

I think the state is doing the right thing. It's also probably saving the state some money too. I think there is nothing wrong with the state offering incentive benefits for what they view as beneficial to the state.

Until some point when healthcare becomes federalized(which I support btw) you don't have a right to health care. It's a privilege you earn by working for it.

I also actually support the idea of a domestic partner regardless of sex. For instance two brothers living together and sharing the bills or two sisters, or any two random people should be able to also share health care benefits IMHO. I don't think it should be a issue linked to sexual preference.

No it's not, it's a service you get by paying for it.


What if I live in a house with 3 roommates? Should my employer support all 4 of us or do I have to pick one?

Tell me if I got this right?

It boils down to this: if you are a straight couple, you have the ability to get married, therefore avail yourselves to spousal benefits

But if you are a Same Sex couple, you don't have the right to marry so you can't share in spousal benefits.

So, Straight couples that chose not to get married have a avenue to get spousal benefits thus they are excluded from this program.

Honestly, it makes perfect sense to me.

Yes.

I was about to post this but, hey you got it.


It's YTown trying to create nonsense again.

You're the last person on here to be calling out people for making 'nonsense'.

Actually I'm the first.

It's takes one to know one. So I have the expertise to call out nonsense.

That is what a part of the article says ...... however it also says that gay activists consider it "discriminatory" when states approve gay marriage, and then "force" gay couples to live under the same laws and rules as straight couples regarding partner benefits.

Go back and read the entire article.

I did, but to me, the crux if the matter revolves around what I posted.

I have to admit I call into question any agenda or idea pushed by activists.

My point in posting the article was the part I mentioned. Gay marriage will be decided by judges. This is a different thing entirely.

Ok,, I just looked at it differently than you.

Ya Know,I'm still trying to figure out why some folks insist on legislating who we can and cannot marry or even fall in love with.

I get that religion has skin in the game, that makes sense but even still, I don't see how a church has any right to tell anyone who they can love.

JMO but I don't think it's anyones business but those involved.

They don't. But when the issue becomes about other rights, like property transfer rights, child custody rights, health insurance benefits, etc... then it becomes as much a legal issue as a moral one. That is where "marriage" has been given legal standing and those battles will all have to be fought as well.

But they do, within their religion or church. They have a right to say "This or that is a sin and you should not commit sin." They also have a right to tell you to go somewhere else to get married because we only marry one man to one woman here. They also have a right to vote against legalization to legalize things they are against, if of course, ever given the chance to vote on a subject.

Exactly.

One of the responsibilities of the church is to help guide the spiritual and moral lives of their congregation.

As far as the original quote: The church (and the Bible, for that matter) does not tell anyone who they can love. We are to love everyone. It does, however, tell us who we can have sex with. There is a difference between love and sex. Too many people today have joined the 2 together to a point where it is difficult to extricate one from the other.

I am always astonished at how many people who call themselves Christians do and support things that go completely against the Bible, and the teachings of Christ. However, I know that I used to do it. I did it quite often. I think that my underlying thought process at the time was "If what they do is OK, then so is what I do". I figured that I wasn't as bad as some other person. So what if I was out chasing women for sex ... at least I wasn't married, and I tried not to go after married women. (though I didn't always succeed at avoiding the married women, and I usually had an excuse ready for those occasions too) It was a selfish way of looking at morality. Now I have got back into the Bible, and am doing my best to follow Christ, and that means not making excuses for behavior that goes contrary to His teachings, but rather trying to follow Him as best I can. I am not perfect, but I legitimately repent my sins and do my best to stay away from those sins, and the situations that caused me to sin, as best as I can.

We should all remember that Jesus forgave sin, but He never once, not once, excused or accepted it. He never said "Oh, that's OK" when faced with someone's sin. Those who repented, which basically means to make a new decision regarding something, were forgiven. If I understand the Bible correctly, and I believe that I do, then God has no forgiveness for those who cry out in a repentant manner, asking for forgiveness, only to decide to go commit the same sins over and over again. I do not believe, for example, that the man who cheats on his wife, and asks God for forgiveness on Sunday, while planning a tryst on Monday, will be forgiven his sin. We have to confess our sins, and then turn away from them, making a different decision regarding our sins. We may fail from time to time, but God knows our hearts, and we cannot lie to Him.

This is the danger of making things the Bible says are sinful into socially acceptable activities and lifestyles. If we refuse to acknowledge that our actions are sinful, even when the Bible itself says that they are, then we cannot be repentant regarding our sins, and I do not believe that we are then forgiven. I think that it takes that acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior, and the repentance of our sins to be forgiven. Accepting Christ means that we obey His every word to the best of our ability. It means that we do not pretend that the Bible says things it does not. It does not mean that we encourage things that the Bible says are sins. Paul warns us against us helping lead others to fall. Well, this whole debate sure looks like that very situation to me. Other things, like accepting divorce, or high 5'ing the married man who is having sex with women who are not his wife sure seems to me to be in that category. Telling someone that the Bible probably says that they are OK when they do things that violate God's law likely falls into this category as well. Accepting people who lie, cheat, steal "because they had a good reason", or "because it's just business" almost certainly falls into that category. Murderers and rapists fall into this category.

The Bible, and Jesus, told us how God expects us to live if we want to be with Him in heaven when this life ends. It is up to us to decide if we want to do so, or not.

The Bible also says that all sin is offensive to God, and that all sin is worthy of the death sentence for us. Now I don't know exactly what happens to us when we die, but my personal belief is that we will all face judgement, and either we will have the likeness of Jesus covering our sins, or we will be judged on our sins. Each and every one of them. Imagine having to stand before God Almighty, and having Him show you every single sin in your life, while you try, in vain, to come up with a defense. Like I said, I don't know exactly what happens when we die, but I do believe that God punishes unrepentant sinners. I do not believe that they are tortured eternally, but i do believe that they are punished for their disobedience to God. I believe that they are then forever separated from God, which means that they will die. Perhaps being cast out into the darkness, all alone, with no one around anywhere, no sense of touch ..... no sight .... no hearing ..... you could not even hear yourself speak or scream ..... this sad sinner, getting what they wanted ... "freedom" from God ..... and as a result, fading away to nothing. Not even a memory will remain of them. That is how I envision it, anyway. I have heard a phrase recently that really seems like it would apply. God honors our choices, whether for good, or for evil. He honors our decisions, and He allows us to accept the punishment for our decisions, because while He treats us as His children, we are His adult children. He tried to tell us what to do, but far too many of us disregard what He says, or decide that we know better.

I wonder how many parents have had to watch their children go through that, and face the consequences for their decisions? It is no different for God. He will not force us to love Him. He will not force us to obey Him. He will honor our choice if we decide to follow a path that runs contrary to His plan for our lives, and if we choose to live in disobedience to Him. That is our decision, and God treats us as adults, and allows us that decision, and also allows us to face the consequences of that decision.

For someone demanding another to read the whole article, you sure seemed to have misinterpreted the fact that the woman speaking chairs a group advocating the right for ALL to have domestic partner benefits regardless of sexual orientation...

But, hey. That's totally interchangeable with "gay activists". Right?

Maybe just leave the people alone or find something more productive to rail against.

From the article:





After what I quoted, they do say that they want this expansion of benefits to expand to unmarried couples as well ..... so at least that group does.

This is, as the article says in a different thing, the law of unintended consequences. Be nice, help those you feel are being discriminated against, and what happens? It's just not good enough, and if you have gay marriage approved in Ohio, then it's still somehow "discriminatory" if gay couples are "forced" to do as straight couples do, and actually get married to get their benefits. Sorry, but that's crap.

It goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished.

I really think this is a logical extension and an end to the classification of domestic partners.

Domestic Partners was a euphemism for same-sex couples who were not allowed to get married previously.

Now that they can get married, the concept needs to be completely abandoned. You are married or you are not married.

If not, and a company wants to extend benefits to a relationship without marriage, then it really should apply to same sex or opposite sex couples.

You can't have it both ways. It is for better or worse....

I would support domestic partnerships if it didn't require a sexual relationship. For instance two siblings living together and supporting each other should be able to receive benefits even though they are not in a sexual relationship. Or even two best friends living together and wanting to help each other out. It can always be dissolved if they get married later on but what's wrong with people helping each other out I always say.

Well, for employers, I guess that the "what's wrong" would be higher employment costs.

I am sure that employers figure on a certain level of overall employees that qualify for benefits being unmarried, and thus eligible only for "single" benefits.

Governments, from city to the federal, have troubles even coming close to balancing their budgets. Doing this for government employees would be another expense, on top of already unbalanced budgets. For private sector employers, it would be another expense either higher prices, or causing lower overall employment, especially in the middle salaried area of most companies, and/or lower wages overall.

These things do not magically pay for themselves. It does no good if a person can say "I used to have all of these great benefits, but the company I worked for went under, and now I can't find a job ...... but man, those benefits were great while they lasted.

As far as benefits for government employees, a I also think that we should immediately change the retirement system for new employees entering the government's employ. There should be no more pensions, because government employees should not receive something that ordinary employees no longer receive. A 401K program should be in place, and a person can contribute to that. Maybe even a limited match, as many employers so. If you have a 100% match up to 10% of your wages, and you do so every month, then you are, in effect, earning an immediate 100% gain on your money. Even if you put it into a very safe investment, you still have doubled your contribution. This is what people in the private sector are having to do, and there is no reason that new employees entering the employ of the government cannot deal with the same system. (including Congressmen and Senators)

JC....


Future Classifieds:
Home owner looking for roommates. Bedroom and private bath.
$xxx/mo ($xxx/mo with health benefits)





Actually I am a little confused by all of this. How are these people/partners uninsured? Aren't they required by the ACA to have insurance through government or employer?

Many people just pay the penalty

So in essence, the ACA is just a money grabbing scheme by our government. Pay us for insurance, or just just pay us.

In truth, since our government still subsidizes the unpaid care costs to providers, there is real need to buy insurance by the uninsured. So far the whole thing seems like an utter failure to me.


(FYI: I actually knew that answer, I was being somewhat sarcastic with my last post)

Along with that, back when, we were told some 30 million to as many as 50 million americans didn't have health insurance. How many have signed up since passage of the law? 8-10 million?

What about all the other people?

Obamacare's big overhead costs to top $270B


That sure is a lot of paper clips.

Obamacare is set to add more than a quarter-of-a-trillion—that's trillion—dollars in extra insurance administrative costs to the U.S. health-care system, according to a new report out Wednesday.

The $273.6 billion in additional insurance overhead represents an average of of $1,375 per newly insured person, per year, from 2012 through 2022.

The overhead cost equals a whopping 22.5 percent of the total estimated $2.76 trillion in all federal government spending for the Affordable Care Act programs during that time, the authors of the report in the journal Health Affairs noted.

In contrast, the federal government's traditional Medicare program has overhead of just 2 percent, according to the report.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102707721

Then use purple!!!

When Chuck Schumer is saying government expansion is a mistake you know the ACA is royally screwed up

We took a broken system and literally threw money at it hoping the problem would go away on its own.

Which is what a lot of us said would happen from the beginning.

The worst part is that all of the "revenue streams" are not yet open. There are taxes yet to come. (conveniently after this President is out of office)

Once 'Father' and 'Son,' Now a Married Couple

Rachel Bertsche
Writer
May 27, 2015


A couple who were legally father and son for the last fifteen years had their adoption vacated and were married this week after 52 years together.

Norman MacArthur, 74, and Bill Novak, 76, were married in Pennsylvania on Sunday. The couple, who has been together since their 20s, registered as domestic partners in New York City in 1994, but in 2000 they moved to Erwinna, Penn., where domestic partnerships are not legally recognized. “When we moved to Pennsylvania, we had both retired and we were of the age where one begins to do estate planning,” MacArthur tells Yahoo Parenting. “We went to a lawyer who told us Pennsylvania was never going to allow same-sex marriage, so the only legal avenue we had in order to be afforded any rights was adoption.”

MacArthur says he thought the suggestion was strange at first. “It struck me as fairly unusual, but we looked into it and discovered that other couples had done it. [Without the adoption] we would be legally strangers.” An adoption would grant the couple certain legal rights they felt compelled to secure. “Most importantly, it would allow us visitation rights in a hospital, and gaining of knowledge if one of us was in the hospital,” he says. “With new HIPAA privacy laws, hospitals are very constrained in what they can say to other people. If we were legally related, I would be allowed into the ER and entitled to know what Bill’s condition was if anything should happen.”

So in 2000, the two went through with a legal adoption. Since both men’s parents were dead, the adoption proceeding was fairly easy. “It wasn’t as though I was replacing one parent with another,” MacArthur says. “I was the son and Bill was the father. Bill is two years older than I am, so that was the only reason.”

Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director at Lambda Legal, says that while adoptions like these aren’t common, they aren’t unheard of, either. “It reflects people’s deep need to protect each other as family, and the attempt to use law that obviously isn’t a perfect fit to their situation to protect each other,” she tells Yahoo Parenting. “While we’ve had a patchwork nation and people have been desperate to take care of each other in some basic way legally, people have sometimes gotten creative to do what they need to do to protect each other as a family. It’s entirely understandable.”

But when Pennsylvania’s marriage laws, which prohibited same-sex marriage, were declared unconstitutional last year, MacArthur and Novak wanted to marry. “As marriage equality, which we’ve fought so hard for, is becoming more available, it makes sense that people would pursue the legal option that more closely explains who they are to each other,” Gorenberg says. “Marriage is the better fit, and if it was available without discrimination, it is what they would have chosen originally.”

The couple’s original lawyer told them that no court would dissolve an adoption unless another person adopted MacArthur. “I said, ‘that makes no sense to me,’ so we began to look around for other options,” he says. Terry Clemons, a lawyer MacArthur knew through volunteer work on the township’s land preservation movement, suggested that the courts might look favorably on a petition to vacate an adoption if it was made clear that the only reason for the original adoption was to give a legal underpinning to the relationship.

The couple went to court on May 14 in hopes the judge would sign the petition to vacate their adoption so they could get legally married. “When we went to court my knees were knocking, but at the end of the hearing Terry said, ‘we’re hoping you will sign the order to vacate the adoption from the bench,’ and the judge said ‘I will happily do that,’” MacArthur says. “We had 30 friends in court to show that this case was out of the ordinary — though the judge knew that — and when the judge signed the order our friends burst into applause and I burst into tears.”

The case is the first time in Pennsylvania that an adoption between a same-sex couple has been vacated in order to allow the couple to marry, according to a statement from Clemons.

Ten days later, the two went from father and son to married couple. “We wanted to get the marriage done fairly quickly after the court vacated the adoption,” MacArthur says. “At that point we didn’t have any legal protection so we wanted to get it taken care of.”

The wedding was a small private ceremony conducted by an old friend of the couple’s who is an Episcopalian priest. “I feel incredibly happy. It’s the only way I can describe it – just enormously happy,” MacArthur says. “It was very much worth the wait.”

Web Link

Well, if the purpose of the title is to make you want to read it to find out more, this one accomplished it's goal.

Amazing how with an empty stomach I can still throw up... from perverts, to incest, to a so called priest performing something God finds to be an abomination. When even the priests don't follow God's Word its no wonder all the sheep are lost and being led to the slaughter of their souls. I can put up with two perverted old men but for someone to call themselves a priest and defile the robe like that he should be kicked out and stripped of his license and titles.

That's why I'm still puzzled by your tone towards just the gay rights activists. I haven't seen anything stating that they only want gays to pick and choose between domestic partnerships and marriage. The issue here is about domestic partnerships being available for people of all walks of life or living situation.

No good deed goes unpunished? What are you even talking about?

This woman wants gay couples to maintain their "couples benefits", even if they live in a state that approved gay marriage, and remain unmarried.

These states offered a plan to approximate the benefit of marriage for gay couples, and now they actually have marriage. That is not good enough, though, and they want us to continue those benefits for gay, unmarried couples.

No good deed goes unpunished. These states offered gay couples a benefit since they could not marry, and now that they can marry, and they get exactly the same benefit as married couples, the say that this isn't good enough. It is just another step down a sinful path. As a Christian, I believe the Bible when it says that we will be punished for our sins, and this type of policy offers legitimacy to these types of relationships, and makes sin acceptable in the eyes of many.

We are not going to see this the same way. I see these sexual relationships involving anything except man and wife as sinful, as defined by Jesus Christ in the Bible. That belief is part of my core. That is my right.

That's fine. I guess I missed the part where Jesus came right out and said that, but to each their own. All my point is, is that as long as the organizations are consistent in wanting domestic benefits for people of all sexual orientations, there is no problem with that and you're ramblings are misdirected. If there are same-sex advocates who think only they should get to choose between domestic partnership or marriage, than they are ignorant, inconsistent idiots. Simple as that.

As for laws validating sin, why is it you haven't written your congressman pushing for punishments for adultery, limiting the ingestion of shellfish, bulldoze casinos, et cetera? Maybe you have. Or maybe you're just picking and choosing which parts of a 2,000 year old book you want to yell about most. It's your right. But I don't see the consistency.

Personally, I just wish so many of the anti-same-sex marriage crowd would just come right out and say what's really at the heart of the matter. "Butt sex is gross. Scissor sex is weird. I just don't like fags or dykes." I'd almost respect that more than the pseudo-intellectual, "Decadence and the fall of Rome" or "Save the children" nonsense.

If you don't see me speaking about cheating on a spouse, and other such sins, then you haven't read much of the what I have written.

As far as shellfish, along with other dietary laws, those laws were abolished in the New Testament.

As far as what Jesus said, you have to use logic.

The only sexual relationship that God allows is within marriage. This was in the 10 Commandments regarding adultery.

Thus, if the only allowed sexual relationship is one that is within the bonds of marriage, and marriage is only a man and a woman joined together for life, then a sexual gay relationship cannot be within the Biblical definition of marriage, and thus is, by definition, adulterous.

Where is the Biblical permission for homosexuality?

Jesus said that marriage is a man and woman, joining together to become one flesh for the rest of their lives. He changed the law of Moses, that allowed for a man to have multiple wives, and for a man to divorce his wife.