Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6972 | +0.0013 | +3.40% |
| F | $11.9749 | +0.0219 | +0.38% |
| C | $8.6601 | -0.6223 | -47.70% |
| S | $9.4250 | -0.7684 | -52.37% |
| I | $11.4821 | -0.6136 | -53.63% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $10.4314 | -0.5746 | -42.81% |
| L 2030 | $10.7668 | -0.5171 | -38.16% |
| L 2020 | $11.2461 | -0.4459 | -32.46% |
| L 2010 | $12.8789 | -0.2531 | -16.70% |
| L Income | $12.1740 | -0.1561 | -9.62% |
Benefits for Domestic Partners of Federal Employees? Readers Speak Out
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Domestic Partners Benefits
DOD
Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:21 AM
Post Reply
Gay Not Gay- If Domestic Partner status is declared why should benefits be allow? This country gives out more free benefit to non citizens with a lot less worry!! So if tax payers want to include their domestic partners WHY NOT LET THEM...
I'm not a gay but I would vote for it in a minute !!because ALL American people have rights not just illegal's...
Only If
DOI
Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:51 AM
Post Reply
If we are going to start benefits for people other than our spouse and kids - to the age allowed - then I want health care for my married kids, their wives, and my grandkids. They don't have any. If we are going to open the door to a casual connection, lets at least open it to extended family.
domestic partnerships
retired
Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:55 AM
Post Reply
Interesting arguments against domestic partners receiving benefits. Citing the '89 study is misleading - it was conducted at the onset of the AIDS epidemic, when treatment was still very experimental. If you want to exclude from coverage anyone who is prone to a shorter lifespan, then why not exclude infants born with conditions that will kill them within a couple of years? Or anyone who practices unhealthy or dangerous lifestyles by smoking, drinking, skydiving, etc. For those who think it should be limited to married couples, well in at least one state, same sex marriage is legal. So those couples should have access to health benefits. Right?
why not...
dol
Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:17 AM
Post Reply
why not just have the option for employees to have employee plus one coverage. then they can choose to have a gay partner, a parent, a sibling, son/daughter, unmarried partner, or someone else that shares the same household on their insurance.
Domestic Partnership Benefits
BLM
Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM
Post Reply
There's some very tortured logic in the negative comments in this article but they mostly seem to boil down to religious grounds and ignorance.
Our Government isn't here to regulate (in any way) religious beliefs. Yet. Further, civil arrangements are available to afford non-marryable folks the opportunity to make their commitments public and official in some jurisdictions; what of them?
I really believe that any couple in a committed long-term relationship shoud have all the benefits and obligations as those who are married by a justice of the peace or in a cathedral.
Benefits for non-married partners
National Park Service
Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM
Post Reply
Allowing benefits for "partners" takes us down the road of changing the definition of marriage, created by God. I agree that it will open the floodgates for abuse, and I don't want MY costs to increase because we are supporting all kinds of immoral lifestyles. The comment about entering the 21st century says it all - we are already on the road to destruction! People who support this are just too blind to see it. God's design is for our own good, and when we step outside of it, we pay the consequences.
Re: Benefits for non-married partners
SSA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:50 PM
Although I think that most of the marriage aspect to this argument is hooey (look at the divorce statistics in our country), I do agree there should be a legal (not religious) qualification for non-married partners, i.e., civil marriage or civil domestic partnership.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
Domestic Partner Benefits
USDA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:01 PM
Post Reply
My Domestic Partner and I will be celebrating 32nd Anniversary on Jan. 12, 2008. I will have 28 years experience as a USDA employee. Those who know us can see and understand our love for one other because it is real. It is not a lifestyle, it's a life. Most people who are discriminatory, judgemental and even hateful about gays and lesbians usually don't even know anyone who is gay and lesbian.
Heterosexuals do not have the right to claim ownership of 'morality'. Using religious beliefs to discriminate is wrong. If you look closely at the civil rights issues in this country, you will discover historically how religion has been used to discriminate. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
The issue of Domestic Partnership should not even be an issue. We are not talking about 'special rights' but equal rights for all Federal Government employees. Gay and Lesbian couples who work for the Federal Goverment should the same benefits that their heterosexual co-workers have.