Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 68
Page 1 of 6

« Previous | Next »

Domestic Partners Benefits: Readers' Opinions Change Over Time

Domestic Partner is not a legal joining

Federal Career Intern
HUD
Tue Apr 7, 2009 8:13 PM

Post Reply

With the desire to have homosexuals have benefits for their domestic partner then this invites heterosexuals to have benefits for their domestic partner. I for one would prefer this be accomplished via a civil union which is how all couples should be joined legally as the marriage is a church institution. Let churches perform a marriage ceremony for who they want but for legality's sake, the civil union needs to be the vehicle to get benefits regardless of sexual preference. As more states recognize homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions this will soon become an even more pressing issue for federal benefits and IRS tax issues in addition to all the other official functions that we've let become joined at the hip through church sponsored marriage. Get government out of the church and marriage business, let government certify the civil union for legal purposes and let churches do the marriage thing as they and their diety see fit.

Re: Domestic Partner is not a legal joining

Engineer
FAA
Thu Apr 9, 2009 6:06 AM
If you believe in God, only marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned, and the rest is sin. So gay marriage should not be condoned.

If you believe in Darwin, marriage was a convenience that evolved between a man and a woman to propogate their DNA. So gay marriage again is a bad idea.

I guess the only people who should think it's a good idea are those folks who thing the Earth was seeded by space aliens (such as the Scientologists).

Everybody else fits into one of the other categories.

DOMESTIC PARTNER'S BENEFITS

CHIEF ENGINEER
MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND
Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:25 AM

Post Reply

As an unmarried 32 year employee with retirement less than 5 years away, I am all for Domestic Partner Benefits reform.
Those of us that have chosen to not marry are paying into a system that will eventually deprive our partners of survivor benefits. It is about time the laws are changed so I can share both my health care and survivor retirements benefits with my partner.
Those that fear their taxes would benefit a minority group should consider that it is currently be unfair for my taxes to benefit solely those who are married. I look forward to the day I retire and am able to take the reduced benefit so that I may leave my partner (and family) financially safe and secure.

Re: DOMESTIC PARTNER'S BENEFITS

worker
Federal government
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:29 AM
I would agree with your position but only if you and your partner have the same legal obligations as a married couple. Thus, if you split, divorce, or whatever the correct term is, you (plural) would have the same responsibilities as a married couple (heterosexual) at present.
I am against those just living together, no matter how committed they are, having shared benefits as a married couple since they do not have the same legal obligations of a married couple.
This is not a moral or Biblical issue. it is a fairness and rights issue. Hopefully, it will be treated that way.
This concept was mentioned in the article by the original author. I elaborated.

Am I missing something ...

Telecomm Engineer
DoD
Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:36 AM

Post Reply

You know, I just don't get it? Why do heterosexual couples always talk about the sanctity of marriage and how same sex marriages are an abomination ... case in point ... a woman that I work with, her son has been married twice to different women. The first marriage was 3 months and the second was 11 months. Both times her son was living with these women. So it appears that he can't commit when it comes to "being married". Why not let homosexual couples marry if they WANT to be committed? Why should heterosexual couples be allowed to ABUSE their marital rights and then deny homosexual couples the right to even become married? I just don't get it! Please explain it to me! This is NOT the first time I heard of situations with heterosexual couples such as this!

Re: Am I missing something ...

Immigration Officer
USCIS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:36 AM
You ARE missing something! Marriage is defined by law, shacking up isn't. I have a friend who went through a bitter divorce 20 years ago, and vowed to never remarry. He has been in a serious committed relationship with a for nearly 15 years now. They own a home and property, they own vehicles, they have a child. They do not have a marriage certificate. He is a USDA employee, and by the regs she is not entitled to his FEHB, etc. If you are going to grant these benefits to homosexuals, then the same benefit MUST be extended to heterosexuals too. I see no mention of this anywhere, all I see is the motley LGBT crew lobbying to have preferential treatment. Enough, you are not a minority, and you do not deserve anything more than you EARN. Our country started down the long decent into hell when we started granting preference to anyone besides Veterans who have already show their loyalty and service to the country!

Re: Am I missing something ...

Engineer
Air Force
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:57 AM
To Immigration Officer:

Your friend's relationship may be "serious," but it's not "committed." To deny his 15-year partner and mother of his child the rights of a spouse is selfish and irresponsible. He may be true to the vow he made himself, but he isn't being true to his partner.

To the overall subject:

Whether partners avoid or are denied civial union status for these long-term relationships, the result is the same. Surviving partners and children of people not legally bound suffer because of their lack of "married" status. Law should allow it, and "committed" couples should show that committment through civil union.

Re: Am I missing something ...

Specialist
USDA
Wed Apr 8, 2009 1:17 PM
I agree with Telecomm Engineer... Why shouldn't gays be able to marry? They deserve to be just as unhappy as the rest of us.

Re: Am I missing something ...

Engineer
USACE
Thu Apr 9, 2009 12:27 AM
Okay, if marriage is so bad and so messed up then why are you so in-favor of it for those of a different sexual orientation?

I do not favor marriage or any other sanction for partnership or whatever you wish to call it. I will also caution, ney WARN. you that some day you will face God. God does not approve of homosexuality - or of the mess many heterosexuals have made of things. The time is now, get right with the Lord.

Re: Am I missing something ...

Telecomm Engineer
DoD
Thu Apr 9, 2009 4:50 AM
You're missing my point Immigration Officer ... my point is homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. If heterosexuals can abuse the sanctity of marriage and think nothing of it, why is society/law denying
homosexuals that want to show their commitment to one another, the right to marry? That's what I don't get.

Specialist, two words for your comment ... "Yes, Dear." ;-)

Benefits to those not legally married

Retired LR Manager
Retired DoD, FAA, US Customs
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:10 AM

Post Reply

The poll is split and I do not think that there is a softening. Some states are still pushing and have approved same sex marriage. Many do not agree to same sex marriage. I also do not agree to hetersexual benefits for those not in a marriage. For gays, marriage is between one man and one woman and that is the divine plan. Plan other legal ways of taking care of the partner. For those in a hetersexual situation unmarried, get married for the benefits. Laws reflect civilization and it appears that the more decadent we get, the worst it is. I am sticking to my values and speaking up. If you disagree, so be it but do not offend me and others by benefits out of marriage. Everyone has a hand out...do the right thing to marry if you are hetersexual. If not, work with the lawyer to protect your gay partner in other ways. If you are smart, it can be done.

Re: Benefits to those not legally married

worker
Federal government
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:35 AM
Perhaps you should read the first amendment to the Federal Constitution about the establishment of religion.
Divine Plan relates to G-d which violates the rule regarding religion. Your arguments should relate to why homosexual couples who want to share married couples obligations and rights should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married. I cannot justify your position.

Domestic Partner Benefits

Info Tech Specialist
Navy Supply Information Systems Activity
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:30 AM

Post Reply

Legally, what is the definition of a domestic partner? Is it a matter of two people that aren't related signing a form?

Re: Domestic Partner Benefits

Worker
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:14 AM
I do not know the legal definition of a domestic partner.
The issue is not signing a form. The issue is taking the responsibilities, legal and otherwise, of marriage. If two whether gay or heterosexuals, take that obligation, then they should have the benefits.

Domestic Partner Benefits

Program Analyst
DHS/FLETC
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:34 AM

Post Reply

It is about time the feds realized that the world is changing - benefits are offered to common law couples and divorced spouses (which can be multiple). Open the door to benefits for committed gay couples. It is time to do the right thing for us all.

Survey

Divisional Union President SEIU Local 200 United
Syracuse VA Medical Center
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:37 AM

Post Reply

Again I repeat my comment, SEIU stands by it's members and understands the needs of todays members. We do provide same sex benifits for our brothers and sisters, as should the Federal Sector.
The survey speaks for itself we need to cover all of our Federal Employees including same sex commited couples and not exclude them.

Total Comments: 68
Page 1 of 6

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.