Domestic Partner Benefits?

[josephjrr]

When our county approved Domestic Partner Benefits for same sex couples, the collective bargaining unit for the county police here negotiated to have the benefits extended to sworn law-enforcement officers who were in heterosexual relationships.

Of course I think its great. I just filled out the documents to have my girlfriend (whom I plan to marry) covered as a dependent on the insurance. But, at heart I am a traditionalist and something just bugs me about it.

Does anybody on here have this benefit or heard of it? If so, do you think it somehow destroys the anctity of marriage?

[txinvestigator1]

Just more decay of the morals in our country, and lessens the value of marriage.

[Guard Dog]

Just another way for the gays to ruin our country and destroy the traditional family unit and lead to decay of our family values. The cost associated with providing insurance coverage is high enough as it is with out extending it to homosexuals.
If they choose to have this alternative life style , why do I as a taxpayer have to support it.

Without a marriage, what is to prevent someone with a serious disease from claiming another's domestic partner insurance and then getting coverage hrough the partners insurance.

Many insurance plans, including ours, now will cover preexisting conditions after the 90 day waiting period. Partner of the season or month or year. It will degenerate into a scheme to get insurance coverage and nothing more.

Then it will extend to Social Security, retirement accounts and other spousal benefits. It's going to be a big can of worms with nobody except the sicko's gaining anything. What about the moral people of this nation. They sit idley by as the country is taken down by a bunch of sick liberals. Of course once again....I don't have an opinion.


If they are going to give it to the gays, then it is only fair to give it to the heterosexuals as well.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Guard Dog ]

[Zamboni]

I think that gays should get coverage for their partners but I also think they should be allowed to legally marry. If they could do the latter it would close the loophole for just boyfriend / girlfriend relationships.

[jellybean40]

I'm not sure how i feel about the domestic partner benefit thing...especially regarding health insurance. it's so expensive, and so picky with coverages.

i lived with someone for 9 years and we couldnt share benefits. yes, we had the option to marry but chose not to. that's the point that gays can make...that they dont have that option.

[TinStar]

I do not agree with this notion of extending bennies to "domestic relationship" aka shack ups, to either hetero or homosexuals.

It is another way of ripping off the taxpayer. On the other hand I don't feel that homosexuals are ruining this county and anyone who feels that way ought to move out, now. They do a disservice to their country and denegrate what it is to live in a free society.

Huh GD?

[klar]

I think that this is a good idea for the sake of in some places it is cheaper to stay single and live together than it is to be married. There is even on the federal income tax forms that we all fill out a pentalty for being married. You can save monies and get more back if you file as singles than you would if filing as married. I know here in Iowa you can file your state as married but separate and save about 5-10% on the amount of your taxes. I think those that decide to marry are kewl but those that decide to stay living together should have some of the rights as those who are legally married. After all sometimes it is all about the money.

Klar

[goodgirl]

The fact that homosexuals are not allowed to legally get married is the only reason that some companies have begun offering domestic partner coverage. I think it is extremely admirable and I applaud it.

You don't want people sneaking through the loophole then make it legal for gay couples to marry...problem solved.

[Sparky]

With most insurance coverage, the employer pays the total or majority of the cost for the employee. For dependants, the employee pays for most of it with the employer making a contribution.

My two cents is that, as an employee, since I am paying the lions share of the cost for dependant coverage, then I should be able to add on whoever I want.

If I am not married, then I should be able to add on my significant other. It shouldn't make any difference if the person I want to add and pay for is related to me or not, or the same sex as me or not.

The ability to add people to my coverage is a benefit of the plans and benefits negotiated by by employer. As part of this, they agree to pay a certain amount. It shouldn't matter who it is that I want to add on. It is my benefit to use as I please.

What about single people? Should this benefit go wasted and unused simply because they choose not to marry?

As long as I am paying the majority share of those benefits, then I should be able to put whoever I want on there.

[The Littlest Hobo]

Originally posted by txinvestigator1:
Just more decay of the morals in our country, and lessens the value of marriage.

With a 55% divorce rate, I'd say straights are lessening the value of marriage very well by themselves, thank you.

Morality has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

[txinvestigator1]

Little Hobo,

Where did I mention sexual orientation?

Funny how you ASSume thats what I meant, a little sensitive are you?

The erosion of the family is one of the main causes of moral decay of our country.

Giving benifits to unmarrieds lessens the value of marriage.

Whether homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry is a topic for another thread entirely.

FYI, I do not think homosexuals are either immoral or wrong.

[The Littlest Hobo]

Originally posted by txinvestigator1:
Little Hobo,

Where did I mention sexual orientation?

Funny how you ASSume thats what I meant, a little sensitive are you?.

You didn't. I apologize if I offended you. The general tone of this thread appears to be going to the whole 'homo's are evil and out to get your children' so I jump started the topic. I am not 'sensitive' to the issue. I am quite passionate about it and I don't mince words.

I have found that poeple, in a rush to 'legitimize' their relationships, get married wayyy to soon. Which is why so many marriages don't work.

Life is a lot longer now than 100 years ago, when a ripe old age was 65. An extra decade or two may change one's mind.

People also get married to get 'stuff'. This I find disgusting and declasse.

Now I don't know much about anything except for 2 things. One is long-term relationships. The key to these is not love or compadability or sexual attraction or the rest of that phooey. The key is compromise and respect. No alter or government sanctioned piece of paper can command those two thing. Anyway's I digress.