Same-sex partners to get fed benefits
- Thread starter Beanstalk
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Well since I haven't seen anything actually about same-sex benefits from the Federal government perhaps we can steer the boat back on course.
I would assume that this is similar to the same-sex benefits offered by 99% of corporations in this country. By that I mean it's a nice gesture, but ultimately a slap in the face. Why? Let me explain.
I held a job at a company who finally rolled into the new millenium and started offering domestic partner benefits. This was not just for gay employees, but rather any employee who didn't choose or couldn't get married. Now the difference wasn't covered by the company and the additional amount came out post tax since the federal government didn't recognize it as a pretax expense. Married couples on the other hand got, and still get, a pretax benefit.
Edit: At both of the companies I have worked at that provided domestic partner benefits they required a mountain of paperwork to prove that the couple had been in a committed relationship for years, such as mortgage, lease, joint bank statements, utility statements, etc. Meanwhile the married woman next to me who tried to drug me at her house with her swinger husband simply had to check the married box.
Based on this explanation how is this fair in the slightest? Is health care something that should be restricted to married couples or couples who both have employers who offer health insurance? Why is health care such a touchy subject when trying to provide it to anyone in this country?
P.S. Beanstalk your "founded by Christians" argument is bogus. If we are to follow the religion of whomever was here first then where's your love for the Sun, Moon, Eagle, River, etc. spirit? Or is your argument based on majority rules, because if it is you've got a huge shock coming when Christians are not the majority.
I would assume that this is similar to the same-sex benefits offered by 99% of corporations in this country. By that I mean it's a nice gesture, but ultimately a slap in the face. Why? Let me explain.
I held a job at a company who finally rolled into the new millenium and started offering domestic partner benefits. This was not just for gay employees, but rather any employee who didn't choose or couldn't get married. Now the difference wasn't covered by the company and the additional amount came out post tax since the federal government didn't recognize it as a pretax expense. Married couples on the other hand got, and still get, a pretax benefit.
Edit: At both of the companies I have worked at that provided domestic partner benefits they required a mountain of paperwork to prove that the couple had been in a committed relationship for years, such as mortgage, lease, joint bank statements, utility statements, etc. Meanwhile the married woman next to me who tried to drug me at her house with her swinger husband simply had to check the married box.
Based on this explanation how is this fair in the slightest? Is health care something that should be restricted to married couples or couples who both have employers who offer health insurance? Why is health care such a touchy subject when trying to provide it to anyone in this country?
P.S. Beanstalk your "founded by Christians" argument is bogus. If we are to follow the religion of whomever was here first then where's your love for the Sun, Moon, Eagle, River, etc. spirit? Or is your argument based on majority rules, because if it is you've got a huge shock coming when Christians are not the majority.
Last edited:
Little by liitte, state by state, agency by agency, insurance company by insurance company this last vestiges of discrimination will eventually go away--I am more convinced than ever. I watched Stonewall riots on TV in the late 60's as a little boy--gay people were only striving for the right to "assemble" in public way back then.
I will see fairness in my lifetime. I am patient.
I will see fairness in my lifetime. I am patient.