Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 68
Page 3 of 6

« Previous | Next »

Domestic Partners Benefits: Readers' Opinions Change Over Time

Opinion

Accountant
DFAS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:12 AM

Post Reply

This is not a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights to not apply to sexual orientation. I agree with those who say if you are going to provide benefits to unmarried couples, then I want to be able to cover my adult son.
Besides, it opens this up to fraud, if you cover unmarried partners where gay or not, people can say they are a couple and get the coverage even when they are not actually partners.

Re: Opinion

Worker
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:34 AM
You cannot have a marriage type of situation with your son.
Also there is no fraud if the marriage or civil union has a legal obligation. It must be registered with the state. If the couple splits, then divorce proceedings, with those headaches, must occur.
Just because you and I are heterosexual, that does not mean we must impose it on others.

Re: Opinion

Clerk
DOI
Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:22 PM
This is a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights didn't apply to any other demographic until activists fought to bring it to fruition. The activists for same-sex marriage and/or domestic partnership benefits are following suit, regardless of whether or not any of us agrees with them.

Domestic Partner Benefits

Officer
CBP
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:13 AM

Post Reply

Whether heterosexual or homosexual, if someone chooses to have a life partner, who should limit that? No one. Your wife/husband gets benefits, domestic partners should get benefits. IF they could marry, many would.

discrimination abounds still

IT Speclst
NPS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:27 AM

Post Reply

It makes me ill to see such a large amount of feds still happily discriminating against others. Marriage is whatever the couple makes it, regardless of gender, sexuality, or religious bent. There are mass quantities of people who for TAX reasons won't marry. Domestic partnership is just as serious as a marriage. And it only depends on your circumstance whether its easy or not to dissolve either a marriage or a partnership! For those who cry "cost" issues, get real. Its just a form of 'not in my backyard'. Since you have yours, too bad for everyone else. That's just plain greed and small minded.

Re: discrimination abounds still

Worker
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:42 AM
I cannot agree with your position. If you choose not to get married and have those legal obligations, that is your choice. If you just live with a woman without the legal obligations, I wish you well. But you cannot claim the same benefits as a married couple, because you choose not to have the same obligations.
Homosexual couples are not permitted to share in those benefits and obligations. This is wrong and should be allowed to do so

Re: discrimination abounds still

US Citizen
US Citizen
Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:56 PM
Great. If marriage has not real definition that does not vary from person to person....then as a single person I want to be able to purchase insurance for my sister

Health Insurance for Gay's

Management Assistant
Internal Revenue Service
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:28 AM

Post Reply

I say NO. They are not entitled to receive the same benefits as those of us who are Man (Male) and Wife (Female) in a marriage.

There should never be a man living with a man or a woman living with a woman for the purpose of a marriage or a relationship between them.

This is WRONG IN THE EYES OF GOD, and that is what this country was founded on.

We need to remove this from any type action.
They are able to work and provide for themselves.

If this passes, why can I not get family coverage to cover my daughter who has ovarian cancer and is over 18 years of age. She is not able to work (lost her job due to illness).

Re: Health Insurance for Gay's

Management and Program Analyst
Defense Logistics Agency
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:15 AM
Wrong! This country's founding had nothing to do with religion!

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson

Re: Health Insurance for Gay's

Worker
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:53 AM
Our country's founding had everything to do with religion. Look at the time period and you must agree. However, the founders were smart enough to place a religion clause in the first amendment to the Constitution. It allows everyone to worship or not worship as they see fit. (no human sacrifices etc.) It does not allow for the establishment of a state religion or to jsutify G-d's law(the bible or its equivilent) to justify a position.

OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...

Immigration Officer
USCIS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:29 AM

Post Reply

Before you can go granting what are marital "benefits" (I say obligations) if you will, you must realize that no matter what the state may say, there is already a US law regarding marriage.

From the FAM:
99 FAM 40.1 N1.1 Marriage and Spouse Defined
(CT:VISA-1000; 09-03-2008)
a. Section 7 of the Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) states:
“The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one
woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a
person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Don't like the law, call your Congressman and/or Senator. Any state (there are three) that allows same-sex marriage is in violation of this law. I hope that we can get the Court to handle this matter soon to settle it once and for the next couple of years.

As such, since they do not qualify as a spouse under federal law, and should not be granted the rights and privileges as such.

As before, if you don't like the law...

Re: OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...

Supervisory Attorney
DHS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:00 PM
It is apparent that you didn’t read the article. The proposed law would eliminate part of DOMA. I strongly believe that we should provide benefits to same-sex marriage. It is an issue of civil rights and equal protection under the law. Most, if not all agencies, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation by directive. The failure to provide same-sex benefits is a form of discrimination that needs to be remedied. I am amused when I read comments that claim that our country was founded on Christian principles, and because homosexuality is a sin (in their interpretation of the Bible), same-sex benefits should not be granted. The founding principles allowed the owning of slaves, and considered women and children as chattel (property). The founding fathers, however, did understand the importance of the separation of church and state. All you have to do is to look at Iran to understand the importance of this principle.

Re: OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...

Worker
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:07 AM
I would like very much if a fair court would declare that defense of marriage act unconstitutional. However, that will not happen.
The last two appointed members, including the current supreme court justice, said they would respect precedent. They then voted to support a federal abortion law that was nearly the same as a state law that was declared unconstitutional. Their reasoning was so flimsy that any half wit could see right through it.
Both cases were decided by a 5-4 margin.
All that will happen is that this law will will be declared constitutional by 5-4 until a radical right judge is replaced. Then it will be declared unconstitutional.

Domestic Partners Benefits

Secretary
Fish & Wildlife
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:30 AM

Post Reply

I'm confused. Can you clarify the domestic partners benefits. The reason I ask is there is a gal that I work with that has a common law husband that she currently is getting govenernment medical insurance for him and has for the last 5 years.

Re: Domestic Partners Benefits

Worker
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:10 AM
They are probably considered married in the eyes of the law. A common law marriage, if that is what it is, is still a marriage. I assume they hold themselves out to be married.
Unless there is fraud?

Re: Domestic Partners Benefits

Clerk
DOI
Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:13 PM
Some (maybe all) states that recognize "common law marriage" require the unions to be registered by state government. The official state-sanction probably entitles them to the Fed. benefits.

benefits for domestic partnership

Receptionist
sec
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:40 AM

Post Reply

don't we heterosexal folks count also. as stated in a previous comment --i have been with my boyfriend since 1981 & we can't get benefits either way?? and i consider myself married & committed to each other.

the only way we can get anyhting is to "will" it to each other

Re: benefits for domestic partnership

Divisional Union President SEIU Local 200 United
Syracuse VA Medical Center
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:16 AM
Then get married.
Total Comments: 68
Page 3 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.