Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 68
Page 2 of 6
Page 2 of 6
Domestic Partners Benefits: Readers' Opinions Change Over Time
Total Comments: 68
Page 2 of 6
Page 2 of 6
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2033 | +0.0011 | +0.64% |
| F | $13.5947 | +0.0048 | +1.95% |
| C | $13.6927 | -0.0027 | +3.59% |
| S | $17.9723 | +0.0233 | +9.18% |
| I | $18.5302 | +0.1287 | -0.04% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1474 | +0.0291 | +3.28% |
| L 2030 | $15.9136 | +0.0249 | +2.93% |
| L 2020 | $15.6956 | +0.0208 | +2.45% |
| L 2010 | $15.4351 | +0.0080 | +1.41% |
| L Income | $14.0647 | +0.0064 | +1.33% |
March 14, 2010
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Equality
Department of the Interior
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:45 AM
Post Reply
Where would the line be drawn. I am a single (divorced) mother and I choose not to have a relationship (either heterosexual or homosexual). My children are grown but some do not have health benefits. If we are allowing health, life, vision, and dental benefits to same sex partners, I would like to include my children, grandchildren, friends, and neighbors on my benefit plan.
Re: Equality
Syracuse VA Medical Center
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:13 AM
Re: Equality
DOE
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:27 AM
I've been with my partner in a healthy and loving same sex relationship for over 20 years. I would marry her in a heartbeat if it were legal.
I am helping to pay for the benefits of other people's spouses and I would like the same benefits for my spouse.
What that has to do with your neighbor's and friend's employement benefits is beyond me. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of a loving and commited lifetime relationship.
I realize my post is snarky, but I'm so tired of people thinking that gay people love their partners less than straight people. It sickens me to read remarks that equates my relationship with my life partner to someone's relationship with their dog/neighbor/friend etc.
Domestic Partner Benefits
IRS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:50 AM
Post Reply
I too believe this is inevitable. However, I believe there should be much more emphasis on our college-age children before domestic partners. For instance, my 3 children will turn 19 years old a few months after graduation (all born in the fall), thus will be in college until they are at least 23 years of age (for 4 years) and their health/dental benefits entitlement will expire before they graduate from college, especially if they go to college beyond 4 years.
Re: Domestic Partner Benefits
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:21 AM
Just out of curiosity, what should the maximum age for children be.
I am paying over $300/mo for one child and will have to do this for a second child soon. By then my first will be working and will have his own plan.
Domestic partners bemfits
USEPA
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:55 AM
Post Reply
I am very conflicted on this issue as a former Equal Opportunity Specialist, I can see the Civil rights implications and it seems only fair to give partners of feds the benefits and the issue is what is a committed relationship how will we define it. I believe 5-6 states recoginize gay unions (marriage). Do we only give status to those unions that have been sanction by one of those states? With regard to hetereosexuals relationship, I think not. the individuals in those relationship have made a conscious choice not to get married unlike gay and lesbians who have no choice they, for the most part are not allowed to marry.
Special treatment not equality
Federal
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:55 AM
Post Reply
If everyone is so interested in "equality" then why don't they do what the rest of us have done? Meet the convention as required.
People who are not legally married do not meet the convention and those that said "partnerships" are also transient are often correct.
I have known unmarried couples who have remained together for over 20 or so years however why should they be "more equal" than the rest of us? I'm sick of making exceptions for the few at the expense of the majority.
They aren't asking for equality but special treatment. Why do they merit special treatment, because they flaunt convention?
Re: Special treatment not equality
DOI
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:22 AM
Furthermore, we're not talking about coverage for all people. We're talking about extended an employment benefit to all employees. Companies normally extend certain benefits to all married couples, but only to their children through college, and not to parents, grandparents, etc. Those who object under the premise that they can't extend their coverage seem to be missing the point.
Re: Special treatment not equality
DOE, Albuquerque
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:41 AM
Re: Special treatment not equality
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:28 AM
The problem with your argument is that same sex couples are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the same treatment as heterosexual couples who are committed to marriage. You cannot justify marriage (or its equivilent) being limited to heterosexuals without using religion, which violates the first amendment concerning the establishment of a religion.
Allow gay people to marry or an equivilent and have the benefits and liabilities of a married couple.
Employee plus one
Fed Agency
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:56 AM
Post Reply
I favor a plan of "employee plus one," letting the employee decide who that additional person is - spouse, partner, sibling, parent. Please don't feed me the line that gay people are as committed or more committed to their partners than straight people are to their spouses. We all know exceptions in both camps.
Other post-ers are correct - you can make arrangements to financially provide for another person either by saving or purchasing life insurance. Term life insurance is cheap (if you buy when you are young), you can name the beneficiary of your choice, and if you aren't married and don't subsequently have to get divorced, the courts cannot force you to maintain a certain person as beneficiary. Oh right, now the insurance companies are asking for bail-out money, too. . . .
Rome & Sex
DOD
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:59 AM
Post Reply
Everything isn't about sex. Rome fell for many reasons; sex and God's wrath isn't one of them. France has a workable process. Marriage has two components - a civil ceremony to satisfy the requirements of the state (legal) and a church ceremony to satisfy religious requirements. To be married in the eyes of the state, a person has the civil ceremoney. To be married in the eyes of your church family, a religious ceremoney is performed. So non-believers are just as married as those who have both ceremonies. Marriage is not in trouble because gays want it. Believers need to determine why marriages fail; "no divorce" is not the answer. Where's the religious outcry on fringe groups of Mormons & "celestrial" marriages in which a man has several wives?
Domestic Partners Benefits
USAF
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:11 AM
Post Reply
This is totally insane!!! You are opening the Government up to massive fraud. Not only that but it is WRONG WRONG WRONG.