Office Assistant Forest Service Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:28 AM
It appears that most of the respondent are assuming the domestic partners referred to are homosexual. They need to also consider heterosexual domestic partners. We also need to have self + one for the legally married couples that have no children, or for the single parent with just one child to cover. Why should these folks pay a higher amount than the equivalent of two singles?
Re: Extending health beneftis to domestic partners
Scientist FDA Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:53 AM
A labor and employee relations specialist with DHS in Dallas wrote: "The costs of group insurance are based on the number of claims filed corporately by the group. There need to be legitimate restrictions on who the group participants can be in order to hold down the costs of the insurance. Opening the benefit to anyone who comes along wanting to be included puts all current group participants at risk of increasing costs and forces everyone in the group to support (through insurance premiums) lifestyles that they believe to be unhealthy." (Well, we are supporting folks already in unhealthy lifestyles like smoking, obesity, alcoholism, and drug use--where is my freedon to NOT support them?)
Comments
Attorney EPA Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:49 AM
The comments you posted in your article completely belie the actual statistics from your survey. The survey shows that opinion is divided, with a slight majority (52%) against benefits. Yet, in the text of your article, you print 10 comments *against* the proposal and only 4 comments in favor of the proposal, with one undecided.
An uninformed reader skipping over the actual data would get the impression from reading your article that most survey participants were strongly opposed to this, when in fact this is obviously not the case. If you are going to print reader comments, at least make them representative of the actual data you collected. Any honest surveyor would do the same.
Re: Comments
editor FedSmith.com Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:54 AM
The statistics in the survey are exactly as calculated by the computer. We could have eliminated most of the comments to publish the same number for or against. The reality is that the vast majority of the comments were similar to those that we published. In other words, we could have skewed the comments to make it look exactly like the statistics of those voting but that was not the way the comments were submitted. I don't pretend to know why so many more were against the proposal but that is the reality.
Re: Comments
Researcher Federal Agency Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:52 AM
Technically, the EPA poster is correct. The percent difference between those who support the proposal and those who are against it is only 7%. But the ratio of written comments in the article heavily favor those who are against (10 comments vs 4 for those who are in favor). I'm not quite sure what you mean by "I don't pretend to know why so many more were against the proposal but that is the reality." Again, it's only a 7% difference.
Or maybe you are trying to say that there were more written comments by those who are against the proposal. If that's the case, you should probably be more clear because the way the article is written gives the appearance of your being biased. And as a long-time Fedsmith reader, I know that is not the case.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
HR Director (Retired) Department of the Air Force Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:02 AM
I am amazed by the results! Offering the full array of benefits to domestic partners is the right thing to do and should be a requirement. This is not an issue of whether or not one "approves" of somesone's life style. It is an issue of fairness and qualifications. If the participants are eligible and qualify for the benefits they should be provided to them. To say that providing domestic partners benefits will "open the system to abuse" is just foolish - no one can say, without a doubt, that abuse will or will not occur or than any instances of abuse will be larger than those currently occurring. We should not be looking for excuses to exclude fellow co workers - we should be pushing to extent all benefts to all federal workers, whether or not we like them or their lifestyle, as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. In my 35 plus year Federal career I had employees with domestic partners and at the work site they were not different than those with married partners.
Health Benefits
administrative specialist BLM Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:07 AM
If they go this far with FEHB, why don't they allow us to buy coverage for our nieces, nephews, parents, etc., at least they are blood relatives. This is the worst issue I have heard of - why not try to lower the cost of health insurance so everyone can participate.
Re: Health Benefits
Program Support Assistant VA Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:45 AM
I agree with allowing coverage for a dependant parent that has no pension, only a "sliver" of social security benefits.
That, in my opinion, is the ONLY non-married person that should be allowed to be covered.
More Anti Family Legislation
Analyst FSA Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:08 AM
The term "domestic partner" is an insult to our cultural institutions of family and marraige. You don't have to subscribe to either of these long standing cultural institutions. That is your choice. However, as with all your individual choices, you accpet the consequences. You want to shack up, fine. Your partner wants benefits, go see a justice of the peace or minister. As for the homosexuals, you want to live that way, so be it. But again, don't ask us to subsidize you.
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
IT Spec DOE Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:41 AM
Analyst at the FSA,
I am a gay person who has been in a relationship with my partner for 20 years. I am tired of subsidizing your benefits without being able to have the same benefits in return.
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
Analyst DOD Tue Jan 1, 2008 5:55 PM
Wow, if you put as much effort in finding peacefull ways to exist on this planet as you do in hating (which is not a Christian thing!), life would be better. You seem to identify yourself by what you don't like as opposed to what you do...
We actually don't have limited resources, we have all that we need if we can just be creative. Domestic partner benefits do not limit yours nor do they tear apart Your family. That you can do all by yourself
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
Paralegal Specialist ODAR Wed Jan 2, 2008 7:27 AM
Oh please...I love your phrase "don't ask 'us' to subsidize you." You mean like when "we" have to subsidize everything else under the sun like schools, even though "we" don't have children? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to complain too much about that because helping kids is the right thing to do and it's for the greater good of "all." I'm just so sick and tired of people standing on their so-called moral soap box and preaching how bad "we" are. My partner and I have been in a committed relationship for almost 18 years yet we have no benefits to speak of. We both have good jobs, work hard, and are active in our own communities. I love my married neighbors to death, but they smoke and drink (things "we" are accused of doing in our "unhealthy lifestyle" and have had 7 marriages between them. The institute of marriage is a fine slogan to throw around, but be careful of throwing the stones too hard.
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
Safety & Health Manager US Dept of Labor - OSHA Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:21 AM
"Cultural institutions of family and marriage????" What about "all men are created equal?" My being gay is not a "choice". My partner and I live in a commited and loving relationship. We are hurting NO ONE. Also, homosexuality is not a "choice." The Federal Gov't needs to quit cowering to those on the religious right like yourself and move into the 21st century like most of the Fortune 500 companies. They have enacted domestic partner benefits, and we don't see them crumbling or becoming less profitable. Furthermore, if you really knew your Bible as well as you think you do, and if you understood it in its historical context, you would realize that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality. Your beliefs are cosmically absurd and archaic. Grow up.
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
Specialist DOD Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:54 AM
It's time to realize the freaks at the gay pride parades in California do not represent the vast majority of gay people. My gay friends are in commited, loving relationships that most of my straight friends envy, and I am on my third marriage. All thay want is to be able to live as a couple with the same rights my wife and I have. Not only should they have the benefits but there needs to be at least a recognized, legally binding commitment ceremony, won't call it marriage to appease the zealots out there.
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
Engineer Interior Wed Jan 2, 2008 5:25 PM
The analyst at FSA is correct. Everyone knows the deal and when some choose a lifestyle that is different, only then do they carp about long standing rules and norms. You want to cohabitate and not marry, or have a gay partner, go ahead. But a family you are NOT. Its an outrage.
As to those that complain about providing family benefits if we don't to domestic partners.... I say get real. What's next? Benefits for our pets?
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
Engineer DoD Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:11 AM
Obviously the engineer at the Interior is just looking to stir up hate and descension. Do you really know what makes up a family? Yea, you could look at all the definitions in Webster's Dictionary, but a true family does not consist of those bound by blood (if it did, then you and your wife would not be a family). It consists of individuals committed through love and devotion. If you consider homosexuality to be a lifestyle, then what do you consider heterosexuality to be? Did you choose to be heterosexual? I did not choose to be homosexual, but that is who I am. I love myself and you have to love who you are before you can love others. Do you love who you are?
I pay for entitlements the same as you, why shouldn't my family be entitled to the same things as yours? Should I continue to support only your family and disregard mine?
The big picture
Housing Technician USDA Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:12 AM
The problem with implementing something like this is it only covers part of the problem. Without the state recognizing these partnerships the couple is still technically contestable. If the couple splits is the partner still entitled to recieve those benifits and how do you determine that? The benifits system would basically have to be on the honor system. As comment in the last article a gentlemen mentioned insuring is 40 year old son. Would this also cover currently ineligible children like those above the dependent age and the children on the person's partner?
Domsetic partners of federal employees
Account Tech DHS Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:17 AM
One of the benefits of the marriage commitment I made to my wife 20 yrs ago should not be watered down because others choose not to make the same commitment. Most of the private companies that caved into the pressure did so not because they agree with that lifestyle, they did it because of the influence of a small group of people- gay and lesbians. People living outside of wed-lock should not be given this benefit, they have nothing holding them there and it'll raise the cost exponentially for the rest of us. This idea creates a snare that this country will pay dearly for in the log run!
Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees
Analyst DOD Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:45 PM
Do you think some people don't choose to get married? Yes, some do. Others, don't even get to make the choice because it's made for them.
Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees
IT Speclst NPS Tue Jan 1, 2008 7:28 PM
watered down?! your marriage is to your wife, period. Benefits? That's personal. It always cost more to be married than single thanks to the tax codes til recently. Was that a benefit? One would hope you got married for the sake of Love. Nothing waters that down except yourself.
Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees
Scientist EPA Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:33 AM
"Choose not to make the same commitment?!!" Last time I checked there were discriminiatory laws on the books that tell me I am a second class citizen and have no right to marry. Give us our equal rights and we will happily get married to meet your definition of who is eligible for benefits.
benefits for domestic partners
Claims Examiner DOL Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:22 AM
There are two issues here - one concerns access to insurance and one concerns legal marriage. As long as gay Americans cannot marry there will be a push to allow domestic partners to receive health benefits. Allowing domestic partners to be insured does raise problems with how to limit the coverage. Here are some solutions:
Create universal health insurance. It would eliminate the need for people to marry in order to protect their family members (by which I mean life partners gay and straight).
Legalize gay marriage. This would provide gay partners the same legal status as straight ones including health benefits, married tax status, legal recognition in medical emergencies etc.
Create a national civil union open to all; anyone who wanted a religious marriage would have one addition. The legal rights and obligations of marriage would belong to the civil union as in some European countries. The religious observance, rules etc. would belong to the denomination.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
Contractor USDA Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:30 AM
Obviously your purpose for taking this survey was not an unbiased one. You seem to give more credit to the Christian Fundalmentalist stance than equal say from any prospective.
I think we should ban anyone who smokes, drinks, eats red meat and has any decease from being permitted to sign up for Federal Benefits. I also think single individuals should not have to subsidize baby factories by paying for health benefits they don't use.
FedSmith is Biased
Manager USDA Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:31 AM
My comments in support of the legislation wasn't included - I am for the change. My comment stated that the federal workforce protects every possible category - family status, marital status, every color possible - either protect all employees or none. Heck, the feds even hire illegals!!!
Would like to have known how many respondents who were against the proposal were of color. Surely, they feel they deserve to be protected based on the color of their skin. Shameful that any minority would not support the only minority who lacks protection in the federal workplace.
As for the Editor and the biased article - it isn't hard to deduce that the article would be focused on the those who were opposed. Conservative biase for all articles on site.
The survey was one of the shortest I've seen - should have included, age, political affiliation, race, etc. - the results would have been more meaningful - and certainly more enlightening - to see which groups were for or opposed.
Re: FedSmith is Biased
editor FedSmith.com Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:40 AM
As there were approximately 500 comments submitted in conjunction with the survey and we only published a small number that generally reflected the tenor of the comments sent in by readers. Many of our surveys lead to comments that are skewed in one direction. My guess is because some readers with a particular point of view may have a stronger opinion or are more interested in voicing an opinion. We try to reflect this when publishing the comments. This process, expecially on controversial topics such as the subject of this recent survey, often results in more comments similar to yours or others that are popping up from people who may not have liked the comments from other readers or don't like the fact that more comments were received and published reflecting one particular point of view.
The controversy and free exchange of ideas is actually what makes the site interesting. We are often accused of being too liberal/conservative or favoring Democrats/Republicans or being to prounion/antiunion depending on the news items that are on the site or the opinion of the person commenting. We post most comments as you will see from the FAQ's on our site. Check out the older article at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/291/
All Or Nothing
Field Engineer AFMC Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:35 AM
If same-sex couples cannot receive benefits than no one should be entitled! I thought this was a democracy, not a theocracy!
Re: All Or Nothing
IT Specialist NASA Wed Jan 2, 2008 3:01 PM
"Executive Order 13087, issued on May 28, 1998, prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation within Executive Branch civilian employment. The Executive Order states this policy uniformly by adding sexual orientation to the list of categories for which discrimination is prohibited." Many of the responses here have been discriminatory and homophobic.
Denying benefits for the LGBT community smacks of discrimination based on this Order's statement that "It is the policy of the Federal Government to provide an equal opportunity for all of its employees."
Why Stop There!
supervisor Customs and Border Protection Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:40 AM
Why should the financial burden of a high risk category/population (gay/lesbian domestic partners) be born by the mainstream, single or married, federal employee? If it must be that domestic partners (all unmarried couples) are covered by their federal employee’s insurance, then I suggest the creation a special health care group just for domestic partners. Of course, this group will have to bear their own costs based upon their risks and not push off any of their risks/expenses upon the mainstream. Also, to keep this from becoming another form of social segregation, other categories of people should also be included, such as: live in elderly parents; adult children; polygamists; and communal domestic partners (Is having sex with someone the basis for deciding who has a right to receiving health benefits?).
Yes, this is the 21st Century and no we do not live in a socialist country. Don’t ask me to bear the cost of your life style by causing my insurance costs to to up.
Re: Why Stop There!
IT Spec DOE Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:50 AM
To the Supervisor Customs and Border Protection (with your bigoted outlook, you should not be in the role of a supervisor).
Applying your logic we should cut the benefits of people who are over weight, drink too much, smoke, etc. As you said in your title, "Why stop there!".
Or, perhaps we should just end spousal benefits all together, that way we could really save money.
Re: Why Stop There!
Attorney EPA Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:46 AM
Your comment makes no sense - what in the world makes you assume that being gay puts you in a "high risk" population? If anything, the gay folks that I work with have much healthier lifesyles than the heterosexuals - they eat better, exercise, aren't overweight, etc. Also, perhaps it didn't occur to you that gay women who aren't IV drug users have virtually no chance to contract AIDS, unlike heterosexuals or gay men. Also, they are probably less likely to need expensive maternity care (although many are having kids these days, it's still a lot fewer than heterosexual women).
Re: Why Stop There!
supervisor Customs and Border Protection Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:14 AM
IT Spec, DOE: Today it seems people are quick to call others with different view points bigots, racists, etc. Please don’t try and put words into my mouth. I never suggested cutting benefits for anyone. As I stated, we do not live in a socialist country. If you want the benefits that come through hard work (beyond basic welfare), or your significant(s) others’ hard work, then you pay for them ($). When I was in my early 20’s, I had to pay a higher premium for auto insurance because I was in a high risk category. Those who were not in a high risk category did not have to supplement the cost of my insurance, it was covered by my (my risk groups’) increased premiums. Insurance companies also do the same for flood and other kinds of insurance. By creating a high risk benefits category/group, coverage can be extended to those who are of “close significance” to the hard working federal employee, not just domestic partners.
As a supervisor, I try to never “should” on people.
Domestic Behavior
Employee Dep of the Treasury Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:43 AM
I find it interesting that so many federal employees can condemn homosexual behavior and sanction illegitimate children being covered in the same system. The homosexual employees have to pay for illegitimate children born into families on welfare, this is not our choice, a result of our actions or something we "spiritually agree" on. How about an attitude that this is just plain wrong. Having children outside the bibilical definition of marriage is unacceptable and should not be sanctioned by covering their healthcare costs. You would say that's ridiculous but I say you are ridiculous, you bigots are the reason this country is going down the tubes. What I don't understand is if we stand for freedom, freedom is for all and all should be entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone. Most of these opinions come from people who wouldn't know a homosexual if they were bit by one. They see Gay Pride Parades and assumed we are all freaks. We are your neighbors and co-workers
Bigotry
Engineer Navair Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:56 AM
I can't believe all the bigots that work for the greatest country in the world.
What is there to stop a gay or non-gay from marrying just to get the benifits??
Answer: None, happens all the time.
We need to join the 21 Century.
Domestic Partners Benefits
Management Assistant DOD Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:21 AM
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
Mike DOI Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:51 AM
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
HR specialist retired Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:55 AM
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...
economist dol Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:17 AM
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
Retired BLM Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM
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
Education Specialist National Park Service Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:21 AM
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
Supervisory Analyst SSA Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:50 PM
I am gay and cannot have a civil marriage or domestic partnership in my state. My partner and I have been together over 36 years and yet my partner cannot receive health benefits from my employer. I too want equal rights, not special rights, and I think not offering these health benefits to my partner is discriminatory.
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
Program Technician USDA Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:01 PM
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.
Raises cost for all legitimate marriages
retired USFS Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:29 PM
And if this is to be the new state of things, let all those who would call themselves "domestic partners" suffer the GPO and WPA consequences and in the case of disolved (called "divorce" in a legal marriage) partnerships, let them have to split the retirement annuity of the supporting member and get on with their misurable lifestyle.
Domestic Partners of Federal Employees
RN USPHS Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:47 PM
Do you realize that the only responses you printed were regarding homosexuals? What is your orientation? i.e. were there any comments regarding 'roommates' requesting benefits? How about 'illegal immigrants'? How about 'pets'? This is a much bigger can of worms than just homosexual.
Back to One BC
Security Specialist DOD Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:29 PM
You can see who is writing for this move. It is not the Married Man and Women or is it the Non Married Man and Women who live together. It is the Homosexual perverts; they want this country to be the way the Roman Empire was before Jesus Christ came on the seen to straighten all out. That is why the Homosexual perverts have to ram every piece of legislature down the throats of the married man and women. This way they get everyone to accept them no matter what the consequences are.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
Lieutenant Bureau of Prisons Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:53 PM
I remember when inter-racial marriage was considered immoral. I can't wait til all the homophobes find out that someone in their family is gay or lesbian and they suddenly take up the cause. In the mean time, we're still DINKS and enjoying life.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Just Wondering US Government Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:13 PM
What about the lonely cat lady? Should she get domestic partner benefits for her cats? Is sex a requirement? If so, many married couples would not qualify!
What about the girl friends of married men? Shouldn't they get domestic partner benefits? After all they can get pregnant and ill from their partner.
What about men who's religions allow more than one wife, shouldn't they all get domestic partner benefits?
Once you open the can, the worms go everywhere!
Re: Domestic Partner Benefits
IT Specialist NASA Wed Jan 2, 2008 3:20 PM
Reference Fortune 500 policies on this benefit. The cost impact is minimal, and worms still roam the earth, not cans.
Benefits for domestic partners
Editor National Archives and Records Administration Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:23 PM
I have been in a committed monogomous relationship for over 19 years. I feel strongly that my life partner should be entitled to the same benefits that accrue to "married" couples.
Domestic partners of federal employees
Analyst DOD Tue Jan 1, 2008 3:01 AM
Some do not choose to be a "Domestic Partner." The decision was made for them in that they are not allowed to be legally married. Of course they should be offered the same benefits. Come on folks, this is not a "chosen" lifestyle, this is life! Someone far greater than us made that decision.
Re: Domestic partners of federal employees
analyst Department of Defense Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:19 PM
Thank you...I couldn't agree more. Can't you people see that there are thousands of gay federal employees in LONG TERM committed relationships. Come on people, stop your sanctimonious crap...this IS LIFE, not a lifestyle. We ALL want and need the same things whether you're gay or straight. We are all human and all want to take care of our families...PERIOD.
Benefits for Domestic Partners Of Federal Employee
Policy Expert SSA Tue Jan 1, 2008 5:33 AM
The federal government needs to catch up with the private sector if it wishes to recruit and retain a talented work force. This is not a moral issue, it is a fairness issue. Research has shown that the additional costs involved are minimal. It is time that gay and lesbian employees receive the same benefits as married straight couples.
Re: Benefits for Domestic Partners Of Federal Empl
(retired) USDA Wed Jan 2, 2008 8:57 PM
Let me tell you this white straight male was past-over on promotion for a lesbian that treatened (non-verbal) a claim of discrimination based on any award other than to her. On top of that her app was late but still taken into consideration. I had a case but too close to retirement. I know the score. No discrimination based on HOW YOU, AND TO WHO, DO SEX TO!
homophobia runs rampant
IT Speclst NPS Tue Jan 1, 2008 7:23 PM
gad. its no wonder our country is such a gigantic mess. Look at the comments full of resentment, homophobia, and intolerance! I fully support the notion of coverage for domestic partners as I did before I got married and after. If you're not comfortable with one's own sexuality you're uncomfortable with others. Get real. Get a life. Quit projecting your illfounded presumptions onto others! If this govt wasn't so full of people who can't see past their own noses, more than Massachussets would have legalized marriage for any two persons. Its their business if they want to marry - two persons committed to each other is a good thing no matter what. Love is the answer, it should not be the problem. I do agree however that some sort of documentation would need to be found to limit the scope of relationships in some form (like common law marriage does?) until all states follow the constitution (all men are created equal - not just those that are heterosexual) and allow marriage for all.
Domestic Partner Benefits
HR Specl AF Tue Jan 1, 2008 11:41 PM
Domestic Partner benefits are long over due. The Fed Govt for the most part has led the way in benefits, anti discrimination laws et al... This is one issue that the Feds are lagging behind the Private Sector. We do not discriminate based on sexual orientation for Civilians but we can't claim our spouses for benefits. The Feds need to step up to the plate and allow benefits for domestic partners.
Health Care
Engineer EPA Dallas Wed Jan 2, 2008 6:43 AM
The solution is to charge a consistent standard fee for every additional person and allow the employee to add as many people as they wish or can afford (spouse, kid, parent, brother, friend, etc). For example, if I have to pay $200 per month to add my husband, it should cost $1200 per month to add a wife and 5 children. Why should our tax dollars show favoritism in support of other people's lifestyle choices?
Of course, this eventually will lead to a national, one payer health care system which is what we really need in this county. Instead of giving our money to greedy insurance executives (BCBS CEO makes more than $100 million) we can put it toward health care for everyone. Since doctors' biggest expenses are often paperwork-related, the money would be better utilized if spent it on real health care, instead of the bureaucracy.
APPROVAL
SUPERVISOR EEOC Wed Jan 2, 2008 6:46 AM
gays should be allowed to marry the same as any one else. the partner in a commited gay couple relationship should be eligible for insurance.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
HR Specialist SSA Wed Jan 2, 2008 8:56 AM
Fed Empls should provide coverage for their legal domestic partners; and that's the key-straight or gay, there must be a registered dom. partnership in a state that recognizes such partnerships. No legal partnership or marriage - no insurance. FEHB is part of a compensation package - and there's no reason somebody that has a legal domestic partnership should be compensated any less than somebody who has a legal marriage. The Fortune 500 started this over 10 years ago & these days it's common to see equal benefits being offered across the board. If we want to be able to recruit the best & brightest for Fed employment, we better catch up w/the private sector. There's a minimal cost & the benefits to be reaped are huge in terms of recruitment and retention as we approach the upcoming retirement wave. The religious arguements have no place in this discussion & the cost issues are mitigated by the fact that those w/no coverage continue to subsidize those employees who cover their kids.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
IT Project Manager State Department Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:11 AM
My wife's company offers a "1+1" option that covers two people but costs less than full family coverage (currently the only FEHB option to cover the both of us). Since we have grown children, that would work well for us and a lot of others in similar circumstances. I would welcome that and hope the government soon offers it as an option.
As for the moral issues discussed in this blog, I'm astounded at the highly negative tone of many of the responses. Those offering a religious defense of their intolerance should read their New Testaments several times.
Benefits for domestic partners
Revenue Agent Treasury Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:25 AM
How sad. This is the United States of America, not Germany of the 1940's. Gay couples are not hurting anyone else, and they have the right to live their life as they please, and it is not morally right to keep them from the same basic rights that anyone else has. So many of the responders seem to think that this country is only for Christians (but apparently not for gay Christians). Hmmm. WASN'T RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION the reason this country was founded? Shall we not allow coverage for those of the Jewish faith? There are so many so-called "Christians" who are judgmental, intolerant, bigoted, and hateful that it boggles the mind, and denying these benefits to anyone other than people "like" them, is not "Christian". BUT, wait a minute! Bottom line, isn't there supposed to be "separation of church and state" ANYWAY???? By the way, I am not gay.
article substance
Cartographic Technician USDA Forest Service Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:27 AM
I find it interesting to see that the data shows only 52% of survey responses were negative, yet your article shows 10 examples of negative responses to 4 positive. Why did you choose to represent the negative responses more than that of the positive? It sure gives the impression that more people were against it than really were.
Personally, I like to think of this as more like the glass is half full than empty. Ten years ago, this might not have been the case. Instead of your synopses of “A majority of readers were against the proposed change,” I would say the story here is that Gov. employees are split on supporting benefits. Why must we focus on the extremists and negativity?
Re: article substance
editor FedSmith.com Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:05 AM
As we said in response to another reader who raised the same issue. there were approximately 500 comments submitted in conjunction with the survey and we only published a small number that generally reflected the tenor of the comments sent in by readers. We were not seeking to have a perfect statistical distribution in the name of political correctness or to please as many readers as possible. Many of our surveys lead to comments that are skewed in one direction and that was the case in this instance. My guess is this is because some readers with a particular point of view may have a stronger opinion or are more interested in voicing an opinion. We try to reflect this when publishing the comments. This process, expecially on controversial topics such as the subject of this recent survey, often results in more comments similar to yours or others that are popping up from people who may not have liked the comments from other readers or don't like the fact that more comments were received and published reflecting one particular point of view.
The controversy and free exchange of ideas is actually what makes the site interesting. We are often accused of being too liberal/conservative or favoring Democrats/Republicans or being to prounion/antiunion depending on the news items that are on the site or the opinion of the person commenting. We post most comments as you will see from the FAQ's on our site. Check out the older article at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/291/
More education needed
GS Working Stiff Treasury Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:46 AM
People who cite anecdotes regarding healthy and successful hhomosexual persons and their "relationships" are ignoring or unlearned regarding the lifestyle. It is proven dangerous in physical and psychological health statistics; it is morally wrong in the context of American Judeo-Christian history and ethics, and it is still ILLEGAL in the vast majority of American jurisprudence. If we're citing anecdotes, I've lost two high-school classmates to homosexual AIDS and a relative to a blood donation from an AIDS carrier. Had all these "anecdotes" been straight, I bet they'd still be enjoying life in America, and my relative may have lived to help her husband raise their two boys!
Re: More education needed
Safety & Health Manager US Dept of Labor - OSHA Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:28 AM
The title of your post says it all...."More Education Needed." Exactly....More education is needed FOR YOU. Psychologically unhealthy?? Okay.....Then what you are saying is that I should marry someone of the opposite sex even though I am gay? That sounds very psychologically healthy to me. I was there my friend.....married and gay. I got into this predicament partly because I had bigoted beliefs (like yours) pushed down my throat all of my life, and in turn I was living in denial. FYI....That situation was extremely unhealthy for both my ex-wife and I. Now I am living in a very healthy relationship with my gay partner and my wife has moved on to a healthier relationship. I'm glad you think that you know your Bible history so well. If you knew half of what you think you......You would understand the historical context of the words in the Bible and realize that it does NOT condemn homosexuality. Maybe you should join the Westboro Church (Fred Phelps) in Topeka.
Survivor Annunity & domestic benefits
Scientist NRC Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:08 AM
My husband died before he retired. Because we were married for ONLY 25 years, if I remarry before I'm 55 I will lose the annunity he paid for. This isn't a freebie but something he earned and paid for. OPM has made it so that I have to have a "domestic partner" until I can remarry in 7 years. So much for "family values"
Hmm. The benefits aren't cheap. Let people choose!
Federal Employee DoD Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:20 AM
Hmmm.
I saw this survey too late and was unable to participate.
I am 30 something and I find that many many normal young people are choosing simply not to marry. Too many people get married these days simply to have the opportunity to get the benefits. The extra benefits aren't free, the employee should have the right to offer them to a formal spouse or the person of their choice.
Society should embrace the realities of our communities.
That person could be a life long partner that refuses to get married (e.g. Prince Charles' new wife...) a best friend, a lover etc... The benefits aren't cheap and federal service should grant the employee the respect and right to pay for and choose a beneficiary for the bbenefits
Domestic benefits
HR Spec US Mint Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:35 AM
I did not vote initially but now that I see some of the stupid reasons that are pushing this into the no column, I will add that the benefits SHOULD be given to those who can show they have been together in a committed relationship, as a spouce would. Funny are those who say it will lead to Gays living longer because they will have insurance...well that is a good thing. I would not expect to add a 40 yr old son, as the family is meant to move out and on, thus the current age restrictions. As for unacceptable behavior, that is in the eye of the beholder. For my lover of 31 years, I am paying my insurances and his...is this fair. It is no "choice" to be GAy/Lesbian, yet we are penalized because it has not been accepted until recently. Would certain readers who voted NO want all of us to be back in a closet...many still are for fear of ridicule and reprisal. The US is far behind other countries with our Puritanical views. Benefits Yes-does not cost much and will keep Govt competitive.
Not Until the Law is Changed
Managment Analyst USAG Wed Jan 2, 2008 1:16 PM
There were so many comments brought into this topic reference homosexuality. The problem is that like many other employers, the Federal Government has a right to set the rules for who should receive insurance benefits. One of the rules (or legalitiies) is that in order to receive benefits, a couple has to be married. Even unmarried hetrosexual couples cannot receive benefits. So the fight should be on retaining the rights for same sex marriages. Until then, no benefits.
Address Legal Status First--then benefits
Air Force Manager Air Force Wed Jan 2, 2008 3:01 PM
The question of benefits cannot be answered until laws giving legal status for civil unions are written. Our benefits go only to those we have a legally-defined relationship: spouse, children and legal dependents. The argument over “marriage” is moot, since it is the legal definition of the employee’s dependent that determines coverage.
As a married man with children, I don’t like the term “marriage” applied to homosexual unions. However, the government’s constitutional concern should NOT be with the religious implications, but with the rights of individuals and the legally-defined benefits that should be fairly provided to every adult. Two people choosing a life together should have a legal path to protect their household and assets.
Could legal unions be abused? Can’t they, already? Is there a cohabitation rule for married couples? Couldn’t I marry to benefit a woman I don’t love or live with? To her children? The slippery slope arguments apply to everyone.
Re: Address Legal Status First--then benefits
NP VA Wed Jan 2, 2008 4:33 PM
Frankly when I answered the survey I really wasn't thinking about the Gay issue or the straight but not married issue, but the need for me to provide insurance for my Dad when he lived with me. That 1+1 option would have been a godsend for us. He is dead now but he had multiple comorbidities and good insurance was really necessary to provide for him. Then the time I brought my niece to live with me. She needed health insurance. I was trying to get her through high school and community college, 1+1 again would have been super beneficial. I may live in the south but I have not wanted to marry either my father or my niece.
Benefits for domestic partners
Retired government employee Treasury Dept. Wed Jan 2, 2008 5:40 PM
I would like to have a retirement system that allows retired employees to determine who they want to share their benefits with whether that be a brother, sister, parent, partner or whoever. The retirement system should remain as is and not grant benefits to homosexual partners.
response to my need for more education
GS Working Stiff Treasury Thu Jan 3, 2008 10:35 AM
Safety & Health Manager
US Dept of Labor - OSHA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:28 AM
I take your challenge. Please direct me to the credible scholars and sources of interpretation of either Catholic or Protestant accepted divinely inspired scripture that will tell me that sex between men and men or women with women is not sin in teh eyes of God (Jehovah, Yahweh, LORD or I AM). I promise to read with a fresh perspective, and do the critical thinking (again) which you imply that I have not.
Re: response to my need for more education
Safety & Health Manager OSHA Thu Jan 3, 2008 9:56 PM
GS Working "Stiff"....
I will be happy to provide your with some sources of education that you so obviously need.
Try these:
1) The Good Book, by Peter J. Gomes - Peter Gomes is the minister of Harvard University
2) The Sins of Scripture - John Shelby Spong - Spong was the Episcopal Bishop of Newark until his retirement in 2000. Read "Section 4" specifically.
3) On the web go to www.ccunitykc.org, then go to the bottom right of the home page and click on the audio links to previous sermons. Click on "Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality" - Oct. 30, 2005. Then LISTEN. This is a good history lesson on writings in the Bible.
I hope that you will really look at and listen to these references and enlighten yourself!
Re: response to my need for more education
HR Specialist SSA Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:24 AM
GS Wking Stiff....you scare me. "It is proven dangerous in phys. and psych. health statistics; it is morally wrong in the context of American Judeo-Christian history and ethics, and it is still ILLEGAL in the vast majority of American jurisprudence" ??? Are you kidding me?? Can you give credible (emphasis on credible - not the religious right dogma passed off as scientific fact) references on exactly which physical/psych health statistics prove this dangerous situation? How giving a reference where current (emph on current) Amerc'n jurisprudence states that homosexuality is ILLEGAL? Hello-catch up! Sodomy laws struck down by the US Supreme Court-ring a bell? I swear, this sounds so like the arguements back in the civil rights era; how the army couldn't be racially integrated & why we couldn't possibly allow mixed race marriages....
Illegitimate Children
No1 Treasury Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:26 AM
Many of the comments about the legal union of a man and woman as a requirement to qualify for health benefits got me to wonder how these same folks view the same coverage for children born out of wedlock. It seems to me that if you apply the same standards that are expressed about marriage then these children should also be banned from coverage!? Please enlighten us, thanks!
Safety & Health Manager... thank you.
GS Working Stiff Treasury Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:49 AM
I will be at my library and online after work today to do just that. And, I will have open more than one mainstream translation of the Holy Bible for verification. Please note that I am examining the work of a Harvard teacher, an Epicopalian leader, and whatever doctrines the referenced website may contain. I am open to knowing other points of view, based on facts and verifiable history. Word of caution: In reviewing my original posting and reply, I don't see any personal attack language. It is unfortunate that you chose to be so judgmental, bigoted, and self-righteous in your snide attacks and insinuations that I belong with such an obvious extremist as a Fred Phelps. I wonder if Mr. Gomes, Spong and your other instructors are enthused by their student's cocky utilization of their work to so "enlighten" me as I "so obviously need".
Re: Safety & Health Manager... thank you.
Safety & Health Manager OSHA Fri Jan 4, 2008 11:23 AM
GS Working Stiff....
You're welcome. I do apologize for the "Phelps" remark. That was overboard on my part. If you look at the first sentence of your original post, however, you insinuated that homosexual persons are unhealthy and unsuccessful. That is simply not true. Also, to refer to AIDS as "homosexual AIDS" is inciteful.
I'm sorry that you feel that my remarks were "snide" and "cocky," but I've literally spent many, many hours researching this subject (homosexuality and the Bible).
I sincerely hope that you will at least consider what the aforementioned references have to say. I also hope that you will love and accept gay people for who they are.
domestic partners
Executive Officer NASA Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Nothing is written in stone and with 50% of marriages ending in divorce it is ludicrous to assume that historically sanctioned heterosexual marriages are morally superior to any other sort of domestic arrangement. Trying to quote scripture to justify what is essentially a near-sighted and besotted point of view is above everything else, un-Christian.
Observation of commenters
Public Affairs Officer NASA Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:58 PM
I find it interesting that those who objected to coverage of a domestic partner have very poor grammar and spelling skills- including the retired Air Force person. It's a reflection on their education and misunderstanding of the word "equal." Under the law, it actually DOES mean "equal." Yes, the government should fall in line with private sector and provide those benefits, as long as proof of partnership is available. As for those who preach "morals" and religion, they should be concerned with their own backyard first. Religious people need to practice "love everyone." Gay people pay taxes just as they do - and they deserve the same benefits.
Insurance for same-sex marriage or life partner
Retired IRS Fri Jan 4, 2008 4:17 PM
Absolutely not. If that partner needs to go on welfare to have medical support, let that person get a job, even a low-paying one, to help defray the medical costs. Stop depending on the federal government for support.
I support benifits for domestic partners
Federal LEO Department of Justice BOP Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:55 PM
I think that with good screening policies, extending these benifits to domestic partners will be a step in the right direction for our government. It is wrong for the government to be deny benifits to such a class of law abiding tax paying citizens based on some peoples religious perception. Thats the same as discrimination. and the government shouldnt be apart of discriminating against a group of hardworking federal employees. It will only promote low morale and high turnover and support division amoung the workforce.
Domestic Partners
QA Tech Lead DCMA Boeing Long Beach Mon Jan 7, 2008 11:25 AM
Domestic partners should receive same benefits as all others, as they do in the private sector and the rest of the free world.
benefits for domestic partners, same-sex partners
Management Analyst Interior Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:39 AM
Since I can't add my committed same-sex partner of many years to my health insurance and other benefits, does that mean my taxes will be decreased accordingly? i still have to pay taxes to support Joe Shmoe's wife of 6 weeks, whether he stays with her a long time or not.
DP benefits for federal employees
Senior Attroney SSA Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:29 AM
It is disheartening, although hardly surprising, to hear the tenor of some of the responses to inclusion of DP benefits. I am a practicing Catholic, but feel that the government should not be using some, or any, questionable religious standards as a basis for employment benefits. This is the 21st century. Many Fortune 500 companies are doing it and we need to offer similar benefits in order to remain competitive. Bigots, whether religious or otherwise, need to go back into their closets and pray for their personal enlightenment.
Yes to same sex benefits
analyst Department of Defense Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:54 AM
Federal employees are tax payers and are going above and beyond the normal tax payer to serve their country. Why shouldn't federal gay employees be afforded the same rights? It's discrimination. If you don't want to give gay employees the same benefits, then don't make them pay the same taxes. It's as simple as that. Why is it that all federal employees have to raise their hands to protect the same Consitution, but gay employees of this country aren't afforded the same rights and benefits? It's disgusting! Shame on all you narrow minded fools. Do you honestly believe that straight people are the only ones defending this country and making it great? I'm beginning to wonder what all the hype is about if this is the way you are going to treat your fellow citizens, especially the ones that serve!!! I hope you all choke on your bigotry!!
Domestic Benefits
auditor DCAA Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:05 PM
This is another attack on marriage. What is wrong with you people. I llive with my dog, maybe he can be my domestic partner. What a joke.
Discrimination and berhind the times
Program Analyst Departmenmt of Commerce Fri Feb 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Fifty years ago, many parents of those against allowing same sex individuals to recieve Federal retirement benefits were aginist interracial marriages. We have finaly moved past that backward thinking. I hope we will soon move past discriminating against individuals of the same sex that love each other and want to share their life together as a married couple. If you proposed to take retirement benefits away from same sex couples there would be an up rising. Most people want to share their life with a loving partner in a continuing stable relationship. Gay individuals are no different. We should treat each other based on what is in their heart and on how they treat others; not on the color of their skin, or what sex they are. Hopefully, it want take another 50 years for Americans to move our of the dark ages and join the 21st century.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Manager Customs and Border Protection Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:30 AM
I have been with my partner for over 26 years. Yet, we are not entitled to the same benefits as married couples. Over the years, I have seen married couples with children get divorced, remarry and have more children, divorce and remarry again. Each time their new spouse and their children are entitled to all the benefits. Is this fair? Calll it what what you want, but individuals who are against domestic partner benefits are simply prejudiced. Many use religion as a weapon of intolerance and hate. It was not too long ago, when religion was used to justify segregation and ban interracial marriages. By prohibiting Gays and Lesbians from enjoying the same rights as all Americans, including marriage,you are denying us are constitutional rights that all men (and women) are created equal and entitled to life, liberty and our pursiut of happiness.
Benefits for Domestice Partners
Administrative Support Assistant Defense Contract Management Agency, Northern California Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:18 AM
I am a Federal Employee and have been with my girlfriend/wife for over 27 years. During that time, i have not been able to get her Federal Health Benefits because we are not legally married. She relies on Medicare, which we all know is not the greatest. I forgot to mention, my girlfriend/wife is Physically Disabled. I think the law should be passed. If it was, my girlfriend/wife would not have to depend on Medicare and be able to have a better choice of doctors. The reason we have not married is becasue she would her social security benefits, which she receives because she is disabled.
Benefits for Domestic Partners of Federal Employee
Veterinary Medical Officer APHIS Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:22 AM
I think the government should get out of the business of trying to legislate morality and concentrate on doing what's right instead. We should be the Leaders, not the begrudging...
Federal employee benefits for domestic partners
Secretary/Stenography Veterans Affairs Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:41 AM
Absolutely this should not be allowed. There's nothing right about it. It opens the system up for abuse by anyone living with a federal employee being claimed as a "partner" and benefitting from our contributions. I already have to pay the same for my husband and myself as for a family of umpteen-dozen kids. I'll be darned if I'm going to have that going toward lifestyles, gay or otherwise, that are immoral and even illegal. If this happens, I'd better be able to also add my uninsured grown daughter who had to drop out at age 22. Yes, she's uninsured by choice - but it's also the choice of all these people to live with someone either they don't want to marry or can't legally. Like the rest of us, they should live by the rules or live with the consequences.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
Retired DOD Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:52 PM
Yes, I do favor benefits for domestic partners. Don't forget there are traditional folks also who choose not to marry who are denied benefits currently for their partner. Many private companies already provide that option. What is the difference if they are legally married or not. When we count numbers into the benefit pool folks don't seem to have problems with married folks with 6 children (pertaining to health care). If we tried to limit the number of children which could be covered, that would be viewed as outrageous. Specifically on health care and related health issues -- definitely yes.
Pro Benefits
Park Ranger NPS Wed Oct 1, 2008 4:18 PM
There are many of us who have served this nation in all branches, and we are citizens and employees deserving the same rights even else has. Being born what you is not a choice, no one choices what gender they shall be attracted to, the human genome project has begun to unravel the biological facts behind homosexuality.
It exists in the animal kingdom, including the human species, and those that would deem us otherwise are either fearful of what is inside themselves, or plain afraid. We are your brothers, your sisters, your mothers, your fathers, we come in all shapes, sizes, and colors of the rainbow, and we have the same right to protect our loved ones as you do.
Equal Rights take Time as History Shows
Civil Servant DoS Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:53 PM
Many who do not believe domestic partners should have the same rights as heterosexual partners cite religious reasons. In the perspective of U.S. History, we see the same religious dogma which stood against the abolition of slavery, suffrage for Blacks, equal rights and suffrage for women etc. Remember interracial married partners were not legalized as a federal statute until 1967. I repeat, 1967. But now, who could ever imagine that a White Woman could not receive health insurance from her Non-White Husband's federal job? People have changed.
One of the quotes on the Jefferson Memorial describe how our Laws need to change as society progresses, and if not, it is like a grown man wearing his childhood coat.
As our society progresses, it is inevitable that we adopt equal rights for domestic partners. It happened in MA and then CA. It'll continue.
"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson
Extending health beneftis to domestic partners
Forest Service
Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:28 AM
It appears that most of the respondent are assuming the domestic partners referred to are homosexual. They need to also consider heterosexual domestic partners. We also need to have self + one for the legally married couples that have no children, or for the single parent with just one child to cover. Why should these folks pay a higher amount than the equivalent of two singles?
Re: Extending health beneftis to domestic partners
FDA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:53 AM
Comments
EPA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:49 AM
The comments you posted in your article completely belie the actual statistics from your survey. The survey shows that opinion is divided, with a slight majority (52%) against benefits. Yet, in the text of your article, you print 10 comments *against* the proposal and only 4 comments in favor of the proposal, with one undecided.
An uninformed reader skipping over the actual data would get the impression from reading your article that most survey participants were strongly opposed to this, when in fact this is obviously not the case. If you are going to print reader comments, at least make them representative of the actual data you collected. Any honest surveyor would do the same.
Re: Comments
FedSmith.com
Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:54 AM
Re: Comments
Federal Agency
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:52 AM
Or maybe you are trying to say that there were more written comments by those who are against the proposal. If that's the case, you should probably be more clear because the way the article is written gives the appearance of your being biased. And as a long-time Fedsmith reader, I know that is not the case.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
Department of the Air Force
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:02 AM
I am amazed by the results! Offering the full array of benefits to domestic partners is the right thing to do and should be a requirement. This is not an issue of whether or not one "approves" of somesone's life style. It is an issue of fairness and qualifications. If the participants are eligible and qualify for the benefits they should be provided to them. To say that providing domestic partners benefits will "open the system to abuse" is just foolish - no one can say, without a doubt, that abuse will or will not occur or than any instances of abuse will be larger than those currently occurring. We should not be looking for excuses to exclude fellow co workers - we should be pushing to extent all benefts to all federal workers, whether or not we like them or their lifestyle, as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. In my 35 plus year Federal career I had employees with domestic partners and at the work site they were not different than those with married partners.
Health Benefits
BLM
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:07 AM
If they go this far with FEHB, why don't they allow us to buy coverage for our nieces, nephews, parents, etc., at least they are blood relatives. This is the worst issue I have heard of - why not try to lower the cost of health insurance so everyone can participate.
Re: Health Benefits
VA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:45 AM
That, in my opinion, is the ONLY non-married person that should be allowed to be covered.
More Anti Family Legislation
FSA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:08 AM
The term "domestic partner" is an insult to our cultural institutions of family and marraige. You don't have to subscribe to either of these long standing cultural institutions. That is your choice. However, as with all your individual choices, you accpet the consequences. You want to shack up, fine. Your partner wants benefits, go see a justice of the peace or minister. As for the homosexuals, you want to live that way, so be it. But again, don't ask us to subsidize you.
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
DOE
Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:41 AM
I am a gay person who has been in a relationship with my partner for 20 years. I am tired of subsidizing your benefits without being able to have the same benefits in return.
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
DOD
Tue Jan 1, 2008 5:55 PM
We actually don't have limited resources, we have all that we need if we can just be creative. Domestic partner benefits do not limit yours nor do they tear apart Your family. That you can do all by yourself
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
ODAR
Wed Jan 2, 2008 7:27 AM
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
US Dept of Labor - OSHA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:21 AM
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
DOD
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:54 AM
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
Interior
Wed Jan 2, 2008 5:25 PM
As to those that complain about providing family benefits if we don't to domestic partners.... I say get real. What's next? Benefits for our pets?
Re: More Anti Family Legislation
DoD
Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:11 AM
I pay for entitlements the same as you, why shouldn't my family be entitled to the same things as yours? Should I continue to support only your family and disregard mine?
The big picture
USDA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:12 AM
The problem with implementing something like this is it only covers part of the problem. Without the state recognizing these partnerships the couple is still technically contestable. If the couple splits is the partner still entitled to recieve those benifits and how do you determine that? The benifits system would basically have to be on the honor system. As comment in the last article a gentlemen mentioned insuring is 40 year old son. Would this also cover currently ineligible children like those above the dependent age and the children on the person's partner?
Domsetic partners of federal employees
DHS
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:17 AM
One of the benefits of the marriage commitment I made to my wife 20 yrs ago should not be watered down because others choose not to make the same commitment. Most of the private companies that caved into the pressure did so not because they agree with that lifestyle, they did it because of the influence of a small group of people- gay and lesbians. People living outside of wed-lock should not be given this benefit, they have nothing holding them there and it'll raise the cost exponentially for the rest of us. This idea creates a snare that this country will pay dearly for in the log run!
Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees
DOD
Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:45 PM
Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees
NPS
Tue Jan 1, 2008 7:28 PM
Re: Domsetic partners of federal employees
EPA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:33 AM
benefits for domestic partners
DOL
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:22 AM
There are two issues here - one concerns access to insurance and one concerns legal marriage. As long as gay Americans cannot marry there will be a push to allow domestic partners to receive health benefits. Allowing domestic partners to be insured does raise problems with how to limit the coverage. Here are some solutions:
Create universal health insurance. It would eliminate the need for people to marry in order to protect their family members (by which I mean life partners gay and straight).
Legalize gay marriage. This would provide gay partners the same legal status as straight ones including health benefits, married tax status, legal recognition in medical emergencies etc.
Create a national civil union open to all; anyone who wanted a religious marriage would have one addition. The legal rights and obligations of marriage would belong to the civil union as in some European countries. The religious observance, rules etc. would belong to the denomination.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
USDA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:30 AM
Obviously your purpose for taking this survey was not an unbiased one. You seem to give more credit to the Christian Fundalmentalist stance than equal say from any prospective.
I think we should ban anyone who smokes, drinks, eats red meat and has any decease from being permitted to sign up for Federal Benefits. I also think single individuals should not have to subsidize baby factories by paying for health benefits they don't use.
FedSmith is Biased
USDA
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:31 AM
My comments in support of the legislation wasn't included - I am for the change. My comment stated that the federal workforce protects every possible category - family status, marital status, every color possible - either protect all employees or none. Heck, the feds even hire illegals!!!
Would like to have known how many respondents who were against the proposal were of color. Surely, they feel they deserve to be protected based on the color of their skin. Shameful that any minority would not support the only minority who lacks protection in the federal workplace.
As for the Editor and the biased article - it isn't hard to deduce that the article would be focused on the those who were opposed. Conservative biase for all articles on site.
The survey was one of the shortest I've seen - should have included, age, political affiliation, race, etc. - the results would have been more meaningful - and certainly more enlightening - to see which groups were for or opposed.
Re: FedSmith is Biased
FedSmith.com
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:40 AM
The controversy and free exchange of ideas is actually what makes the site interesting. We are often accused of being too liberal/conservative or favoring Democrats/Republicans or being to prounion/antiunion depending on the news items that are on the site or the opinion of the person commenting. We post most comments as you will see from the FAQ's on our site. Check out the older article at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/291/
All Or Nothing
AFMC
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:35 AM
If same-sex couples cannot receive benefits than no one should be entitled! I thought this was a democracy, not a theocracy!
Re: All Or Nothing
NASA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 3:01 PM
Denying benefits for the LGBT community smacks of discrimination based on this Order's statement that "It is the policy of the Federal Government to provide an equal opportunity for all of its employees."
Why Stop There!
Customs and Border Protection
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:40 AM
Why should the financial burden of a high risk category/population (gay/lesbian domestic partners) be born by the mainstream, single or married, federal employee? If it must be that domestic partners (all unmarried couples) are covered by their federal employee’s insurance, then I suggest the creation a special health care group just for domestic partners. Of course, this group will have to bear their own costs based upon their risks and not push off any of their risks/expenses upon the mainstream. Also, to keep this from becoming another form of social segregation, other categories of people should also be included, such as: live in elderly parents; adult children; polygamists; and communal domestic partners (Is having sex with someone the basis for deciding who has a right to receiving health benefits?).
Yes, this is the 21st Century and no we do not live in a socialist country. Don’t ask me to bear the cost of your life style by causing my insurance costs to to up.
Re: Why Stop There!
DOE
Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:50 AM
Applying your logic we should cut the benefits of people who are over weight, drink too much, smoke, etc. As you said in your title, "Why stop there!".
Or, perhaps we should just end spousal benefits all together, that way we could really save money.
Re: Why Stop There!
EPA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:46 AM
Re: Why Stop There!
Customs and Border Protection
Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:14 AM
As a supervisor, I try to never “should” on people.
Domestic Behavior
Dep of the Treasury
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:43 AM
I find it interesting that so many federal employees can condemn homosexual behavior and sanction illegitimate children being covered in the same system. The homosexual employees have to pay for illegitimate children born into families on welfare, this is not our choice, a result of our actions or something we "spiritually agree" on. How about an attitude that this is just plain wrong. Having children outside the bibilical definition of marriage is unacceptable and should not be sanctioned by covering their healthcare costs. You would say that's ridiculous but I say you are ridiculous, you bigots are the reason this country is going down the tubes. What I don't understand is if we stand for freedom, freedom is for all and all should be entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone. Most of these opinions come from people who wouldn't know a homosexual if they were bit by one. They see Gay Pride Parades and assumed we are all freaks. We are your neighbors and co-workers
Bigotry
Navair
Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:56 AM
I can't believe all the bigots that work for the greatest country in the world.
What is there to stop a gay or non-gay from marrying just to get the benifits??
Answer: None, happens all the time.
We need to join the 21 Century.
Domestic Partners Benefits
DOD
Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:21 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Raises cost for all legitimate marriages
USFS
Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:29 PM
And if this is to be the new state of things, let all those who would call themselves "domestic partners" suffer the GPO and WPA consequences and in the case of disolved (called "divorce" in a legal marriage) partnerships, let them have to split the retirement annuity of the supporting member and get on with their misurable lifestyle.
Domestic Partners of Federal Employees
USPHS
Mon Dec 31, 2007 1:47 PM
Do you realize that the only responses you printed were regarding homosexuals? What is your orientation? i.e. were there any comments regarding 'roommates' requesting benefits? How about 'illegal immigrants'? How about 'pets'? This is a much bigger can of worms than just homosexual.
Back to One BC
DOD
Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:29 PM
You can see who is writing for this move. It is not the Married Man and Women or is it the Non Married Man and Women who live together. It is the Homosexual perverts; they want this country to be the way the Roman Empire was before Jesus Christ came on the seen to straighten all out. That is why the Homosexual perverts have to ram every piece of legislature down the throats of the married man and women. This way they get everyone to accept them no matter what the consequences are.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
Bureau of Prisons
Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:53 PM
I remember when inter-racial marriage was considered immoral. I can't wait til all the homophobes find out that someone in their family is gay or lesbian and they suddenly take up the cause. In the mean time, we're still DINKS and enjoying life.
Domestic Partner Benefits
US Government
Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:13 PM
What about the lonely cat lady? Should she get domestic partner benefits for her cats? Is sex a requirement? If so, many married couples would not qualify!
What about the girl friends of married men? Shouldn't they get domestic partner benefits? After all they can get pregnant and ill from their partner.
What about men who's religions allow more than one wife, shouldn't they all get domestic partner benefits?
Once you open the can, the worms go everywhere!
Re: Domestic Partner Benefits
NASA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 3:20 PM
Benefits for domestic partners
National Archives and Records Administration
Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:23 PM
I have been in a committed monogomous relationship for over 19 years. I feel strongly that my life partner should be entitled to the same benefits that accrue to "married" couples.
Domestic partners of federal employees
DOD
Tue Jan 1, 2008 3:01 AM
Some do not choose to be a "Domestic Partner." The decision was made for them in that they are not allowed to be legally married. Of course they should be offered the same benefits. Come on folks, this is not a "chosen" lifestyle, this is life! Someone far greater than us made that decision.
Re: Domestic partners of federal employees
Department of Defense
Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:19 PM
Benefits for Domestic Partners Of Federal Employee
SSA
Tue Jan 1, 2008 5:33 AM
The federal government needs to catch up with the private sector if it wishes to recruit and retain a talented work force. This is not a moral issue, it is a fairness issue. Research has shown that the additional costs involved are minimal. It is time that gay and lesbian employees receive the same benefits as married straight couples.
Re: Benefits for Domestic Partners Of Federal Empl
USDA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 8:57 PM
homophobia runs rampant
NPS
Tue Jan 1, 2008 7:23 PM
gad. its no wonder our country is such a gigantic mess. Look at the comments full of resentment, homophobia, and intolerance! I fully support the notion of coverage for domestic partners as I did before I got married and after. If you're not comfortable with one's own sexuality you're uncomfortable with others. Get real. Get a life. Quit projecting your illfounded presumptions onto others! If this govt wasn't so full of people who can't see past their own noses, more than Massachussets would have legalized marriage for any two persons. Its their business if they want to marry - two persons committed to each other is a good thing no matter what. Love is the answer, it should not be the problem. I do agree however that some sort of documentation would need to be found to limit the scope of relationships in some form (like common law marriage does?) until all states follow the constitution (all men are created equal - not just those that are heterosexual) and allow marriage for all.
Domestic Partner Benefits
AF
Tue Jan 1, 2008 11:41 PM
Domestic Partner benefits are long over due. The Fed Govt for the most part has led the way in benefits, anti discrimination laws et al... This is one issue that the Feds are lagging behind the Private Sector. We do not discriminate based on sexual orientation for Civilians but we can't claim our spouses for benefits. The Feds need to step up to the plate and allow benefits for domestic partners.
Health Care
EPA Dallas
Wed Jan 2, 2008 6:43 AM
The solution is to charge a consistent standard fee for every additional person and allow the employee to add as many people as they wish or can afford (spouse, kid, parent, brother, friend, etc). For example, if I have to pay $200 per month to add my husband, it should cost $1200 per month to add a wife and 5 children. Why should our tax dollars show favoritism in support of other people's lifestyle choices?
Of course, this eventually will lead to a national, one payer health care system which is what we really need in this county. Instead of giving our money to greedy insurance executives (BCBS CEO makes more than $100 million) we can put it toward health care for everyone. Since doctors' biggest expenses are often paperwork-related, the money would be better utilized if spent it on real health care, instead of the bureaucracy.
APPROVAL
EEOC
Wed Jan 2, 2008 6:46 AM
gays should be allowed to marry the same as any one else. the partner in a commited gay couple relationship should be eligible for insurance.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
SSA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 8:56 AM
Fed Empls should provide coverage for their legal domestic partners; and that's the key-straight or gay, there must be a registered dom. partnership in a state that recognizes such partnerships. No legal partnership or marriage - no insurance. FEHB is part of a compensation package - and there's no reason somebody that has a legal domestic partnership should be compensated any less than somebody who has a legal marriage. The Fortune 500 started this over 10 years ago & these days it's common to see equal benefits being offered across the board. If we want to be able to recruit the best & brightest for Fed employment, we better catch up w/the private sector. There's a minimal cost & the benefits to be reaped are huge in terms of recruitment and retention as we approach the upcoming retirement wave. The religious arguements have no place in this discussion & the cost issues are mitigated by the fact that those w/no coverage continue to subsidize those employees who cover their kids.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
State Department
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:11 AM
My wife's company offers a "1+1" option that covers two people but costs less than full family coverage (currently the only FEHB option to cover the both of us). Since we have grown children, that would work well for us and a lot of others in similar circumstances. I would welcome that and hope the government soon offers it as an option.
As for the moral issues discussed in this blog, I'm astounded at the highly negative tone of many of the responses. Those offering a religious defense of their intolerance should read their New Testaments several times.
Benefits for domestic partners
Treasury
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:25 AM
How sad. This is the United States of America, not Germany of the 1940's. Gay couples are not hurting anyone else, and they have the right to live their life as they please, and it is not morally right to keep them from the same basic rights that anyone else has. So many of the responders seem to think that this country is only for Christians (but apparently not for gay Christians). Hmmm. WASN'T RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION the reason this country was founded? Shall we not allow coverage for those of the Jewish faith? There are so many so-called "Christians" who are judgmental, intolerant, bigoted, and hateful that it boggles the mind, and denying these benefits to anyone other than people "like" them, is not "Christian". BUT, wait a minute! Bottom line, isn't there supposed to be "separation of church and state" ANYWAY???? By the way, I am not gay.
article substance
USDA Forest Service
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:27 AM
I find it interesting to see that the data shows only 52% of survey responses were negative, yet your article shows 10 examples of negative responses to 4 positive. Why did you choose to represent the negative responses more than that of the positive? It sure gives the impression that more people were against it than really were.
Personally, I like to think of this as more like the glass is half full than empty. Ten years ago, this might not have been the case. Instead of your synopses of “A majority of readers were against the proposed change,” I would say the story here is that Gov. employees are split on supporting benefits. Why must we focus on the extremists and negativity?
Re: article substance
FedSmith.com
Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:05 AM
The controversy and free exchange of ideas is actually what makes the site interesting. We are often accused of being too liberal/conservative or favoring Democrats/Republicans or being to prounion/antiunion depending on the news items that are on the site or the opinion of the person commenting. We post most comments as you will see from the FAQ's on our site. Check out the older article at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/291/
More education needed
Treasury
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:46 AM
People who cite anecdotes regarding healthy and successful hhomosexual persons and their "relationships" are ignoring or unlearned regarding the lifestyle. It is proven dangerous in physical and psychological health statistics; it is morally wrong in the context of American Judeo-Christian history and ethics, and it is still ILLEGAL in the vast majority of American jurisprudence. If we're citing anecdotes, I've lost two high-school classmates to homosexual AIDS and a relative to a blood donation from an AIDS carrier. Had all these "anecdotes" been straight, I bet they'd still be enjoying life in America, and my relative may have lived to help her husband raise their two boys!
Re: More education needed
US Dept of Labor - OSHA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:28 AM
Survivor Annunity & domestic benefits
NRC
Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:08 AM
My husband died before he retired. Because we were married for ONLY 25 years, if I remarry before I'm 55 I will lose the annunity he paid for. This isn't a freebie but something he earned and paid for. OPM has made it so that I have to have a "domestic partner" until I can remarry in 7 years. So much for "family values"
Hmm. The benefits aren't cheap. Let people choose!
DoD
Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:20 AM
Hmmm.
I saw this survey too late and was unable to participate.
I am 30 something and I find that many many normal young people are choosing simply not to marry. Too many people get married these days simply to have the opportunity to get the benefits. The extra benefits aren't free, the employee should have the right to offer them to a formal spouse or the person of their choice.
Society should embrace the realities of our communities.
That person could be a life long partner that refuses to get married (e.g. Prince Charles' new wife...) a best friend, a lover etc... The benefits aren't cheap and federal service should grant the employee the respect and right to pay for and choose a beneficiary for the bbenefits
Domestic benefits
US Mint
Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:35 AM
I did not vote initially but now that I see some of the stupid reasons that are pushing this into the no column, I will add that the benefits SHOULD be given to those who can show they have been together in a committed relationship, as a spouce would. Funny are those who say it will lead to Gays living longer because they will have insurance...well that is a good thing. I would not expect to add a 40 yr old son, as the family is meant to move out and on, thus the current age restrictions. As for unacceptable behavior, that is in the eye of the beholder. For my lover of 31 years, I am paying my insurances and his...is this fair. It is no "choice" to be GAy/Lesbian, yet we are penalized because it has not been accepted until recently. Would certain readers who voted NO want all of us to be back in a closet...many still are for fear of ridicule and reprisal. The US is far behind other countries with our Puritanical views. Benefits Yes-does not cost much and will keep Govt competitive.
Not Until the Law is Changed
USAG
Wed Jan 2, 2008 1:16 PM
There were so many comments brought into this topic reference homosexuality. The problem is that like many other employers, the Federal Government has a right to set the rules for who should receive insurance benefits. One of the rules (or legalitiies) is that in order to receive benefits, a couple has to be married. Even unmarried hetrosexual couples cannot receive benefits. So the fight should be on retaining the rights for same sex marriages. Until then, no benefits.
Address Legal Status First--then benefits
Air Force
Wed Jan 2, 2008 3:01 PM
The question of benefits cannot be answered until laws giving legal status for civil unions are written. Our benefits go only to those we have a legally-defined relationship: spouse, children and legal dependents. The argument over “marriage” is moot, since it is the legal definition of the employee’s dependent that determines coverage.
As a married man with children, I don’t like the term “marriage” applied to homosexual unions. However, the government’s constitutional concern should NOT be with the religious implications, but with the rights of individuals and the legally-defined benefits that should be fairly provided to every adult. Two people choosing a life together should have a legal path to protect their household and assets.
Could legal unions be abused? Can’t they, already? Is there a cohabitation rule for married couples? Couldn’t I marry to benefit a woman I don’t love or live with? To her children? The slippery slope arguments apply to everyone.
Re: Address Legal Status First--then benefits
VA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 4:33 PM
Benefits for domestic partners
Treasury Dept.
Wed Jan 2, 2008 5:40 PM
I would like to have a retirement system that allows retired employees to determine who they want to share their benefits with whether that be a brother, sister, parent, partner or whoever. The retirement system should remain as is and not grant benefits to homosexual partners.
response to my need for more education
Treasury
Thu Jan 3, 2008 10:35 AM
Safety & Health Manager
US Dept of Labor - OSHA
Wed Jan 2, 2008 10:28 AM
I take your challenge. Please direct me to the credible scholars and sources of interpretation of either Catholic or Protestant accepted divinely inspired scripture that will tell me that sex between men and men or women with women is not sin in teh eyes of God (Jehovah, Yahweh, LORD or I AM). I promise to read with a fresh perspective, and do the critical thinking (again) which you imply that I have not.
Re: response to my need for more education
OSHA
Thu Jan 3, 2008 9:56 PM
I will be happy to provide your with some sources of education that you so obviously need.
Try these:
1) The Good Book, by Peter J. Gomes - Peter Gomes is the minister of Harvard University
2) The Sins of Scripture - John Shelby Spong - Spong was the Episcopal Bishop of Newark until his retirement in 2000. Read "Section 4" specifically.
3) On the web go to www.ccunitykc.org, then go to the bottom right of the home page and click on the audio links to previous sermons. Click on "Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality" - Oct. 30, 2005. Then LISTEN. This is a good history lesson on writings in the Bible.
I hope that you will really look at and listen to these references and enlighten yourself!
Re: response to my need for more education
SSA
Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:24 AM
Illegitimate Children
Treasury
Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:26 AM
Many of the comments about the legal union of a man and woman as a requirement to qualify for health benefits got me to wonder how these same folks view the same coverage for children born out of wedlock. It seems to me that if you apply the same standards that are expressed about marriage then these children should also be banned from coverage!? Please enlighten us, thanks!
Safety & Health Manager... thank you.
Treasury
Fri Jan 4, 2008 9:49 AM
I will be at my library and online after work today to do just that. And, I will have open more than one mainstream translation of the Holy Bible for verification. Please note that I am examining the work of a Harvard teacher, an Epicopalian leader, and whatever doctrines the referenced website may contain. I am open to knowing other points of view, based on facts and verifiable history. Word of caution: In reviewing my original posting and reply, I don't see any personal attack language. It is unfortunate that you chose to be so judgmental, bigoted, and self-righteous in your snide attacks and insinuations that I belong with such an obvious extremist as a Fred Phelps. I wonder if Mr. Gomes, Spong and your other instructors are enthused by their student's cocky utilization of their work to so "enlighten" me as I "so obviously need".
Re: Safety & Health Manager... thank you.
OSHA
Fri Jan 4, 2008 11:23 AM
You're welcome. I do apologize for the "Phelps" remark. That was overboard on my part. If you look at the first sentence of your original post, however, you insinuated that homosexual persons are unhealthy and unsuccessful. That is simply not true. Also, to refer to AIDS as "homosexual AIDS" is inciteful.
I'm sorry that you feel that my remarks were "snide" and "cocky," but I've literally spent many, many hours researching this subject (homosexuality and the Bible).
I sincerely hope that you will at least consider what the aforementioned references have to say. I also hope that you will love and accept gay people for who they are.
domestic partners
NASA
Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Nothing is written in stone and with 50% of marriages ending in divorce it is ludicrous to assume that historically sanctioned heterosexual marriages are morally superior to any other sort of domestic arrangement. Trying to quote scripture to justify what is essentially a near-sighted and besotted point of view is above everything else, un-Christian.
Observation of commenters
NASA
Fri Jan 4, 2008 12:58 PM
I find it interesting that those who objected to coverage of a domestic partner have very poor grammar and spelling skills- including the retired Air Force person. It's a reflection on their education and misunderstanding of the word "equal." Under the law, it actually DOES mean "equal." Yes, the government should fall in line with private sector and provide those benefits, as long as proof of partnership is available. As for those who preach "morals" and religion, they should be concerned with their own backyard first. Religious people need to practice "love everyone." Gay people pay taxes just as they do - and they deserve the same benefits.
Insurance for same-sex marriage or life partner
IRS
Fri Jan 4, 2008 4:17 PM
Absolutely not. If that partner needs to go on welfare to have medical support, let that person get a job, even a low-paying one, to help defray the medical costs. Stop depending on the federal government for support.
I support benifits for domestic partners
Department of Justice BOP
Sat Jan 5, 2008 5:55 PM
I think that with good screening policies, extending these benifits to domestic partners will be a step in the right direction for our government. It is wrong for the government to be deny benifits to such a class of law abiding tax paying citizens based on some peoples religious perception. Thats the same as discrimination. and the government shouldnt be apart of discriminating against a group of hardworking federal employees. It will only promote low morale and high turnover and support division amoung the workforce.
Domestic Partners
DCMA Boeing Long Beach
Mon Jan 7, 2008 11:25 AM
Domestic partners should receive same benefits as all others, as they do in the private sector and the rest of the free world.
benefits for domestic partners, same-sex partners
Interior
Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:39 AM
Since I can't add my committed same-sex partner of many years to my health insurance and other benefits, does that mean my taxes will be decreased accordingly? i still have to pay taxes to support Joe Shmoe's wife of 6 weeks, whether he stays with her a long time or not.
DP benefits for federal employees
SSA
Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:29 AM
It is disheartening, although hardly surprising, to hear the tenor of some of the responses to inclusion of DP benefits. I am a practicing Catholic, but feel that the government should not be using some, or any, questionable religious standards as a basis for employment benefits. This is the 21st century. Many Fortune 500 companies are doing it and we need to offer similar benefits in order to remain competitive. Bigots, whether religious or otherwise, need to go back into their closets and pray for their personal enlightenment.
Yes to same sex benefits
Department of Defense
Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:54 AM
Federal employees are tax payers and are going above and beyond the normal tax payer to serve their country. Why shouldn't federal gay employees be afforded the same rights? It's discrimination. If you don't want to give gay employees the same benefits, then don't make them pay the same taxes. It's as simple as that. Why is it that all federal employees have to raise their hands to protect the same Consitution, but gay employees of this country aren't afforded the same rights and benefits? It's disgusting! Shame on all you narrow minded fools. Do you honestly believe that straight people are the only ones defending this country and making it great? I'm beginning to wonder what all the hype is about if this is the way you are going to treat your fellow citizens, especially the ones that serve!!! I hope you all choke on your bigotry!!
Domestic Benefits
DCAA
Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:05 PM
This is another attack on marriage. What is wrong with you people. I llive with my dog, maybe he can be my domestic partner. What a joke.
Discrimination and berhind the times
Departmenmt of Commerce
Fri Feb 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Fifty years ago, many parents of those against allowing same sex individuals to recieve Federal retirement benefits were aginist interracial marriages. We have finaly moved past that backward thinking. I hope we will soon move past discriminating against individuals of the same sex that love each other and want to share their life together as a married couple. If you proposed to take retirement benefits away from same sex couples there would be an up rising. Most people want to share their life with a loving partner in a continuing stable relationship. Gay individuals are no different. We should treat each other based on what is in their heart and on how they treat others; not on the color of their skin, or what sex they are. Hopefully, it want take another 50 years for Americans to move our of the dark ages and join the 21st century.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Customs and Border Protection
Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:30 AM
I have been with my partner for over 26 years. Yet, we are not entitled to the same benefits as married couples. Over the years, I have seen married couples with children get divorced, remarry and have more children, divorce and remarry again. Each time their new spouse and their children are entitled to all the benefits. Is this fair? Calll it what what you want, but individuals who are against domestic partner benefits are simply prejudiced. Many use religion as a weapon of intolerance and hate. It was not too long ago, when religion was used to justify segregation and ban interracial marriages. By prohibiting Gays and Lesbians from enjoying the same rights as all Americans, including marriage,you are denying us are constitutional rights that all men (and women) are created equal and entitled to life, liberty and our pursiut of happiness.
Benefits for Domestice Partners
Defense Contract Management Agency, Northern California
Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:18 AM
I am a Federal Employee and have been with my girlfriend/wife for over 27 years. During that time, i have not been able to get her Federal Health Benefits because we are not legally married. She relies on Medicare, which we all know is not the greatest. I forgot to mention, my girlfriend/wife is Physically Disabled. I think the law should be passed. If it was, my girlfriend/wife would not have to depend on Medicare and be able to have a better choice of doctors. The reason we have not married is becasue she would her social security benefits, which she receives because she is disabled.
Benefits for Domestic Partners of Federal Employee
APHIS
Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:22 AM
I think the government should get out of the business of trying to legislate morality and concentrate on doing what's right instead. We should be the Leaders, not the begrudging...
Federal employee benefits for domestic partners
Veterans Affairs
Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:41 AM
Absolutely this should not be allowed. There's nothing right about it. It opens the system up for abuse by anyone living with a federal employee being claimed as a "partner" and benefitting from our contributions. I already have to pay the same for my husband and myself as for a family of umpteen-dozen kids. I'll be darned if I'm going to have that going toward lifestyles, gay or otherwise, that are immoral and even illegal. If this happens, I'd better be able to also add my uninsured grown daughter who had to drop out at age 22. Yes, she's uninsured by choice - but it's also the choice of all these people to live with someone either they don't want to marry or can't legally. Like the rest of us, they should live by the rules or live with the consequences.
Benefits for Domestic Partners
DOD
Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:52 PM
Yes, I do favor benefits for domestic partners. Don't forget there are traditional folks also who choose not to marry who are denied benefits currently for their partner. Many private companies already provide that option. What is the difference if they are legally married or not. When we count numbers into the benefit pool folks don't seem to have problems with married folks with 6 children (pertaining to health care). If we tried to limit the number of children which could be covered, that would be viewed as outrageous. Specifically on health care and related health issues -- definitely yes.
Pro Benefits
NPS
Wed Oct 1, 2008 4:18 PM
There are many of us who have served this nation in all branches, and we are citizens and employees deserving the same rights even else has. Being born what you is not a choice, no one choices what gender they shall be attracted to, the human genome project has begun to unravel the biological facts behind homosexuality.
It exists in the animal kingdom, including the human species, and those that would deem us otherwise are either fearful of what is inside themselves, or plain afraid. We are your brothers, your sisters, your mothers, your fathers, we come in all shapes, sizes, and colors of the rainbow, and we have the same right to protect our loved ones as you do.
Equal Rights take Time as History Shows
DoS
Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:53 PM
Many who do not believe domestic partners should have the same rights as heterosexual partners cite religious reasons. In the perspective of U.S. History, we see the same religious dogma which stood against the abolition of slavery, suffrage for Blacks, equal rights and suffrage for women etc. Remember interracial married partners were not legalized as a federal statute until 1967. I repeat, 1967. But now, who could ever imagine that a White Woman could not receive health insurance from her Non-White Husband's federal job? People have changed.
One of the quotes on the Jefferson Memorial describe how our Laws need to change as society progresses, and if not, it is like a grown man wearing his childhood coat.
As our society progresses, it is inevitable that we adopt equal rights for domestic partners. It happened in MA and then CA. It'll continue.
"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson