With the desire to have homosexuals have benefits for their domestic partner then this invites heterosexuals to have benefits for their domestic partner. I for one would prefer this be accomplished via a civil union which is how all couples should be joined legally as the marriage is a church institution. Let churches perform a marriage ceremony for who they want but for legality's sake, the civil union needs to be the vehicle to get benefits regardless of sexual preference. As more states recognize homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions this will soon become an even more pressing issue for federal benefits and IRS tax issues in addition to all the other official functions that we've let become joined at the hip through church sponsored marriage. Get government out of the church and marriage business, let government certify the civil union for legal purposes and let churches do the marriage thing as they and their diety see fit.
Re: Domestic Partner is not a legal joining
Engineer FAA Thu Apr 9, 2009 6:06 AM
If you believe in God, only marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned, and the rest is sin. So gay marriage should not be condoned.
If you believe in Darwin, marriage was a convenience that evolved between a man and a woman to propogate their DNA. So gay marriage again is a bad idea.
I guess the only people who should think it's a good idea are those folks who thing the Earth was seeded by space aliens (such as the Scientologists).
Everybody else fits into one of the other categories.
DOMESTIC PARTNER'S BENEFITS
CHIEF ENGINEER MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:25 AM
As an unmarried 32 year employee with retirement less than 5 years away, I am all for Domestic Partner Benefits reform.
Those of us that have chosen to not marry are paying into a system that will eventually deprive our partners of survivor benefits. It is about time the laws are changed so I can share both my health care and survivor retirements benefits with my partner.
Those that fear their taxes would benefit a minority group should consider that it is currently be unfair for my taxes to benefit solely those who are married. I look forward to the day I retire and am able to take the reduced benefit so that I may leave my partner (and family) financially safe and secure.
Re: DOMESTIC PARTNER'S BENEFITS
worker Federal government Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:29 AM
I would agree with your position but only if you and your partner have the same legal obligations as a married couple. Thus, if you split, divorce, or whatever the correct term is, you (plural) would have the same responsibilities as a married couple (heterosexual) at present.
I am against those just living together, no matter how committed they are, having shared benefits as a married couple since they do not have the same legal obligations of a married couple.
This is not a moral or Biblical issue. it is a fairness and rights issue. Hopefully, it will be treated that way.
This concept was mentioned in the article by the original author. I elaborated.
Am I missing something ...
Telecomm Engineer DoD Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:36 AM
You know, I just don't get it? Why do heterosexual couples always talk about the sanctity of marriage and how same sex marriages are an abomination ... case in point ... a woman that I work with, her son has been married twice to different women. The first marriage was 3 months and the second was 11 months. Both times her son was living with these women. So it appears that he can't commit when it comes to "being married". Why not let homosexual couples marry if they WANT to be committed? Why should heterosexual couples be allowed to ABUSE their marital rights and then deny homosexual couples the right to even become married? I just don't get it! Please explain it to me! This is NOT the first time I heard of situations with heterosexual couples such as this!
Re: Am I missing something ...
Immigration Officer USCIS Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:36 AM
You ARE missing something! Marriage is defined by law, shacking up isn't. I have a friend who went through a bitter divorce 20 years ago, and vowed to never remarry. He has been in a serious committed relationship with a for nearly 15 years now. They own a home and property, they own vehicles, they have a child. They do not have a marriage certificate. He is a USDA employee, and by the regs she is not entitled to his FEHB, etc. If you are going to grant these benefits to homosexuals, then the same benefit MUST be extended to heterosexuals too. I see no mention of this anywhere, all I see is the motley LGBT crew lobbying to have preferential treatment. Enough, you are not a minority, and you do not deserve anything more than you EARN. Our country started down the long decent into hell when we started granting preference to anyone besides Veterans who have already show their loyalty and service to the country!
Re: Am I missing something ...
Engineer Air Force Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:57 AM
To Immigration Officer:
Your friend's relationship may be "serious," but it's not "committed." To deny his 15-year partner and mother of his child the rights of a spouse is selfish and irresponsible. He may be true to the vow he made himself, but he isn't being true to his partner.
To the overall subject:
Whether partners avoid or are denied civial union status for these long-term relationships, the result is the same. Surviving partners and children of people not legally bound suffer because of their lack of "married" status. Law should allow it, and "committed" couples should show that committment through civil union.
Re: Am I missing something ...
Specialist USDA Wed Apr 8, 2009 1:17 PM
I agree with Telecomm Engineer... Why shouldn't gays be able to marry? They deserve to be just as unhappy as the rest of us.
Re: Am I missing something ...
Engineer USACE Thu Apr 9, 2009 12:27 AM
Okay, if marriage is so bad and so messed up then why are you so in-favor of it for those of a different sexual orientation?
I do not favor marriage or any other sanction for partnership or whatever you wish to call it. I will also caution, ney WARN. you that some day you will face God. God does not approve of homosexuality - or of the mess many heterosexuals have made of things. The time is now, get right with the Lord.
Re: Am I missing something ...
Telecomm Engineer DoD Thu Apr 9, 2009 4:50 AM
You're missing my point Immigration Officer ... my point is homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. If heterosexuals can abuse the sanctity of marriage and think nothing of it, why is society/law denying
homosexuals that want to show their commitment to one another, the right to marry? That's what I don't get.
Specialist, two words for your comment ... "Yes, Dear." ;-)
Benefits to those not legally married
Retired LR Manager Retired DoD, FAA, US Customs Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:10 AM
The poll is split and I do not think that there is a softening. Some states are still pushing and have approved same sex marriage. Many do not agree to same sex marriage. I also do not agree to hetersexual benefits for those not in a marriage. For gays, marriage is between one man and one woman and that is the divine plan. Plan other legal ways of taking care of the partner. For those in a hetersexual situation unmarried, get married for the benefits. Laws reflect civilization and it appears that the more decadent we get, the worst it is. I am sticking to my values and speaking up. If you disagree, so be it but do not offend me and others by benefits out of marriage. Everyone has a hand out...do the right thing to marry if you are hetersexual. If not, work with the lawyer to protect your gay partner in other ways. If you are smart, it can be done.
Re: Benefits to those not legally married
worker Federal government Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:35 AM
Perhaps you should read the first amendment to the Federal Constitution about the establishment of religion.
Divine Plan relates to G-d which violates the rule regarding religion. Your arguments should relate to why homosexual couples who want to share married couples obligations and rights should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married. I cannot justify your position.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Info Tech Specialist Navy Supply Information Systems Activity Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:30 AM
Legally, what is the definition of a domestic partner? Is it a matter of two people that aren't related signing a form?
Re: Domestic Partner Benefits
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:14 AM
I do not know the legal definition of a domestic partner.
The issue is not signing a form. The issue is taking the responsibilities, legal and otherwise, of marriage. If two whether gay or heterosexuals, take that obligation, then they should have the benefits.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Program Analyst DHS/FLETC Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:34 AM
It is about time the feds realized that the world is changing - benefits are offered to common law couples and divorced spouses (which can be multiple). Open the door to benefits for committed gay couples. It is time to do the right thing for us all.
Survey
Divisional Union President SEIU Local 200 United Syracuse VA Medical Center Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:37 AM
Again I repeat my comment, SEIU stands by it's members and understands the needs of todays members. We do provide same sex benifits for our brothers and sisters, as should the Federal Sector.
The survey speaks for itself we need to cover all of our Federal Employees including same sex commited couples and not exclude them.
Equality
Human Resource Specialist Department of the Interior Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:45 AM
Where would the line be drawn. I am a single (divorced) mother and I choose not to have a relationship (either heterosexual or homosexual). My children are grown but some do not have health benefits. If we are allowing health, life, vision, and dental benefits to same sex partners, I would like to include my children, grandchildren, friends, and neighbors on my benefit plan.
Re: Equality
Divisional Union President SEIU Local 200 United Syracuse VA Medical Center Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:13 AM
As a Human Resource Specialist you know the difference between neighbors, grandchildren and friends. Perhaps you should open your minds eye and see what is going on around you. It is your choice to remain single and you can have your children covered to a certain age but, I should not have to tell you that. Again they are asking nothing more of you then the same rights you have had for many years. They pay taxes and fight in wars like you and I.
Re: Equality
IT Spec DOE Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:27 AM
To the Human Resource Specialist:
I've been with my partner in a healthy and loving same sex relationship for over 20 years. I would marry her in a heartbeat if it were legal.
I am helping to pay for the benefits of other people's spouses and I would like the same benefits for my spouse.
What that has to do with your neighbor's and friend's employement benefits is beyond me. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of a loving and commited lifetime relationship.
I realize my post is snarky, but I'm so tired of people thinking that gay people love their partners less than straight people. It sickens me to read remarks that equates my relationship with my life partner to someone's relationship with their dog/neighbor/friend etc.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Labor Relations Specialist IRS Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:50 AM
I too believe this is inevitable. However, I believe there should be much more emphasis on our college-age children before domestic partners. For instance, my 3 children will turn 19 years old a few months after graduation (all born in the fall), thus will be in college until they are at least 23 years of age (for 4 years) and their health/dental benefits entitlement will expire before they graduate from college, especially if they go to college beyond 4 years.
Re: Domestic Partner Benefits
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:21 AM
I agree that dependent children should be covered beyond 22. Do not hold your breath. Money is tight and the government will probably not pay for this.
Just out of curiosity, what should the maximum age for children be.
I am paying over $300/mo for one child and will have to do this for a second child soon. By then my first will be working and will have his own plan.
Domestic partners bemfits
Environmental Protection Specialist USEPA Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:55 AM
I am very conflicted on this issue as a former Equal Opportunity Specialist, I can see the Civil rights implications and it seems only fair to give partners of feds the benefits and the issue is what is a committed relationship how will we define it. I believe 5-6 states recoginize gay unions (marriage). Do we only give status to those unions that have been sanction by one of those states? With regard to hetereosexuals relationship, I think not. the individuals in those relationship have made a conscious choice not to get married unlike gay and lesbians who have no choice they, for the most part are not allowed to marry.
Special treatment not equality
Specialist Federal Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:55 AM
If everyone is so interested in "equality" then why don't they do what the rest of us have done? Meet the convention as required.
People who are not legally married do not meet the convention and those that said "partnerships" are also transient are often correct.
I have known unmarried couples who have remained together for over 20 or so years however why should they be "more equal" than the rest of us? I'm sick of making exceptions for the few at the expense of the majority.
They aren't asking for equality but special treatment. Why do they merit special treatment, because they flaunt convention?
Re: Special treatment not equality
IT Spc DOI Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:22 AM
How do same-gender couples who are legally married (not "domestic partners" or in a civil union)? Those are the folks whose states sanction gay marriages. Aren't they following "convention" by getting married and making a commitment?
Furthermore, we're not talking about coverage for all people. We're talking about extended an employment benefit to all employees. Companies normally extend certain benefits to all married couples, but only to their children through college, and not to parents, grandparents, etc. Those who object under the premise that they can't extend their coverage seem to be missing the point.
Obviously the convention is changing. If you were in charge 20,000 years ago, we would still be in caves hunting and gathering. I have read some people get physically sick at the thought of change. Change inigorates me!
Re: Special treatment not equality
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:28 AM
To specialist federal
The problem with your argument is that same sex couples are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the same treatment as heterosexual couples who are committed to marriage. You cannot justify marriage (or its equivilent) being limited to heterosexuals without using religion, which violates the first amendment concerning the establishment of a religion.
Allow gay people to marry or an equivilent and have the benefits and liabilities of a married couple.
Employee plus one
Unmarried taxpayer Fed Agency Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:56 AM
I favor a plan of "employee plus one," letting the employee decide who that additional person is - spouse, partner, sibling, parent. Please don't feed me the line that gay people are as committed or more committed to their partners than straight people are to their spouses. We all know exceptions in both camps.
Other post-ers are correct - you can make arrangements to financially provide for another person either by saving or purchasing life insurance. Term life insurance is cheap (if you buy when you are young), you can name the beneficiary of your choice, and if you aren't married and don't subsequently have to get divorced, the courts cannot force you to maintain a certain person as beneficiary. Oh right, now the insurance companies are asking for bail-out money, too. . . .
Rome & Sex
Financial analyst DOD Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:59 AM
Everything isn't about sex. Rome fell for many reasons; sex and God's wrath isn't one of them. France has a workable process. Marriage has two components - a civil ceremony to satisfy the requirements of the state (legal) and a church ceremony to satisfy religious requirements. To be married in the eyes of the state, a person has the civil ceremoney. To be married in the eyes of your church family, a religious ceremoney is performed. So non-believers are just as married as those who have both ceremonies. Marriage is not in trouble because gays want it. Believers need to determine why marriages fail; "no divorce" is not the answer. Where's the religious outcry on fringe groups of Mormons & "celestrial" marriages in which a man has several wives?
Domestic Partners Benefits
Supply Supervisor USAF Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:11 AM
This is totally insane!!! You are opening the Government up to massive fraud. Not only that but it is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Opinion
Accountant DFAS Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:12 AM
This is not a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights to not apply to sexual orientation. I agree with those who say if you are going to provide benefits to unmarried couples, then I want to be able to cover my adult son.
Besides, it opens this up to fraud, if you cover unmarried partners where gay or not, people can say they are a couple and get the coverage even when they are not actually partners.
Re: Opinion
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:34 AM
You cannot have a marriage type of situation with your son.
Also there is no fraud if the marriage or civil union has a legal obligation. It must be registered with the state. If the couple splits, then divorce proceedings, with those headaches, must occur.
Just because you and I are heterosexual, that does not mean we must impose it on others.
Re: Opinion
Clerk DOI Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:22 PM
This is a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights didn't apply to any other demographic until activists fought to bring it to fruition. The activists for same-sex marriage and/or domestic partnership benefits are following suit, regardless of whether or not any of us agrees with them.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Officer CBP Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:13 AM
Whether heterosexual or homosexual, if someone chooses to have a life partner, who should limit that? No one. Your wife/husband gets benefits, domestic partners should get benefits. IF they could marry, many would.
discrimination abounds still
IT Speclst NPS Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:27 AM
It makes me ill to see such a large amount of feds still happily discriminating against others. Marriage is whatever the couple makes it, regardless of gender, sexuality, or religious bent. There are mass quantities of people who for TAX reasons won't marry. Domestic partnership is just as serious as a marriage. And it only depends on your circumstance whether its easy or not to dissolve either a marriage or a partnership! For those who cry "cost" issues, get real. Its just a form of 'not in my backyard'. Since you have yours, too bad for everyone else. That's just plain greed and small minded.
Re: discrimination abounds still
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:42 AM
I cannot agree with your position. If you choose not to get married and have those legal obligations, that is your choice. If you just live with a woman without the legal obligations, I wish you well. But you cannot claim the same benefits as a married couple, because you choose not to have the same obligations.
Homosexual couples are not permitted to share in those benefits and obligations. This is wrong and should be allowed to do so
Re: discrimination abounds still
US Citizen US Citizen Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:56 PM
Great. If marriage has not real definition that does not vary from person to person....then as a single person I want to be able to purchase insurance for my sister
Health Insurance for Gay's
Management Assistant Internal Revenue Service Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:28 AM
I say NO. They are not entitled to receive the same benefits as those of us who are Man (Male) and Wife (Female) in a marriage.
There should never be a man living with a man or a woman living with a woman for the purpose of a marriage or a relationship between them.
This is WRONG IN THE EYES OF GOD, and that is what this country was founded on.
We need to remove this from any type action.
They are able to work and provide for themselves.
If this passes, why can I not get family coverage to cover my daughter who has ovarian cancer and is over 18 years of age. She is not able to work (lost her job due to illness).
Re: Health Insurance for Gay's
Management and Program Analyst Defense Logistics Agency Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:15 AM
Wrong! This country's founding had nothing to do with religion!
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Re: Health Insurance for Gay's
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:53 AM
Our country's founding had everything to do with religion. Look at the time period and you must agree. However, the founders were smart enough to place a religion clause in the first amendment to the Constitution. It allows everyone to worship or not worship as they see fit. (no human sacrifices etc.) It does not allow for the establishment of a state religion or to jsutify G-d's law(the bible or its equivilent) to justify a position.
OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...
Immigration Officer USCIS Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:29 AM
Before you can go granting what are marital "benefits" (I say obligations) if you will, you must realize that no matter what the state may say, there is already a US law regarding marriage.
From the FAM:
99 FAM 40.1 N1.1 Marriage and Spouse Defined
(CT:VISA-1000; 09-03-2008)
a. Section 7 of the Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) states:
“The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one
woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a
person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Don't like the law, call your Congressman and/or Senator. Any state (there are three) that allows same-sex marriage is in violation of this law. I hope that we can get the Court to handle this matter soon to settle it once and for the next couple of years.
As such, since they do not qualify as a spouse under federal law, and should not be granted the rights and privileges as such.
As before, if you don't like the law...
Re: OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...
Supervisory Attorney DHS Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:00 PM
It is apparent that you didn’t read the article. The proposed law would eliminate part of DOMA. I strongly believe that we should provide benefits to same-sex marriage. It is an issue of civil rights and equal protection under the law. Most, if not all agencies, prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation by directive. The failure to provide same-sex benefits is a form of discrimination that needs to be remedied. I am amused when I read comments that claim that our country was founded on Christian principles, and because homosexuality is a sin (in their interpretation of the Bible), same-sex benefits should not be granted. The founding principles allowed the owning of slaves, and considered women and children as chattel (property). The founding fathers, however, did understand the importance of the separation of church and state. All you have to do is to look at Iran to understand the importance of this principle.
Re: OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:07 AM
I would like very much if a fair court would declare that defense of marriage act unconstitutional. However, that will not happen.
The last two appointed members, including the current supreme court justice, said they would respect precedent. They then voted to support a federal abortion law that was nearly the same as a state law that was declared unconstitutional. Their reasoning was so flimsy that any half wit could see right through it.
Both cases were decided by a 5-4 margin.
All that will happen is that this law will will be declared constitutional by 5-4 until a radical right judge is replaced. Then it will be declared unconstitutional.
Domestic Partners Benefits
Secretary Fish & Wildlife Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:30 AM
I'm confused. Can you clarify the domestic partners benefits. The reason I ask is there is a gal that I work with that has a common law husband that she currently is getting govenernment medical insurance for him and has for the last 5 years.
Re: Domestic Partners Benefits
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:10 AM
They are probably considered married in the eyes of the law. A common law marriage, if that is what it is, is still a marriage. I assume they hold themselves out to be married.
Unless there is fraud?
Re: Domestic Partners Benefits
Clerk DOI Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:13 PM
Some (maybe all) states that recognize "common law marriage" require the unions to be registered by state government. The official state-sanction probably entitles them to the Fed. benefits.
benefits for domestic partnership
Receptionist sec Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:40 AM
don't we heterosexal folks count also. as stated in a previous comment --i have been with my boyfriend since 1981 & we can't get benefits either way?? and i consider myself married & committed to each other.
the only way we can get anyhting is to "will" it to each other
Re: benefits for domestic partnership
Divisional Union President SEIU Local 200 United Syracuse VA Medical Center Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:16 AM
Then get married.
Same sex partner benefits
Management and Program Analyst Defense Logistics Agency Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:59 AM
Some day we will all look back on these types of conversations the way we now look back at segregation laws from before the Civil Rights Movement. We will all be ashamed that people could be so closed minded towards people's rights just because they are different from us.
Health Insurance for Gays
Human Resources Assistant Department of Veterans Affairs Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:59 AM
If your daughter is under the age of 22 and not married, you should have 60 days from the day she lost her health insurance coverage to pick up the family option and cover her under your health insurance as long as you are carrying health insurance on yourself. As we all know, the government does not recognize pre-existing conditions so you should be fine. Talk to your HR office and see what can be done. I think we are opening ourselves up to alot of problems with all of this. I totally understand being in a committed relationship but there will be alot of people who will take advantage of this if it passes if we do not put rules in place to define what a committed relationship is. I can see people moving in together just to get the insurance.
Why should I be punished???
Human Resources Assistant IRS Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:02 AM
I live with my "domestic partner" of a different sex, we own a house together, we have foster children (adoption is cost prohibitive at this point), we pay taxes (property and income) and I pay into my retirement fund...yet if I die, most of my money will just go back to the government and not to my family because I am not married. Why am I punished?? Because I have different views on marriage and refuse to be forced into doing something I don't want, the money I have "earned" by working here is just gone??
That sounds like a pretty stupid reason to get married and pop out some children if you ask me. Why bring more children into an over crowded world, when we chose to do a good thing and care for other people's children when they can't---and we're punished for it by a good chunk of my benefits just disappearing should I die?
I have more morals than most people I know, and marriage certificate should not be a judgement of that.
Re: Why should I be punished???
Worker Federal government Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:14 AM
Do you have the same obligations as a married couple?
I doubt it. If you split(hypothetical) what happens vs. what happens if you are married?
Gay people cannot have the choice of marriage(or its equivilent). That is the proble.
Definition of marriage
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DOD Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:27 AM
Common Law used to refer to the marriage of anyone not noble. It didn't have the same level of contract as noble marriages were often also treaties and business contracts. Common people just became husbands and wives and started a life together with various degrees of ceremony. Living together as husband and wife pretty well made you that.
If we consider domestic partnerships to be common law marriages, or civil marriages and define the rights and responsibilities to each other that such a committment carries, then I don't see the problem.
Domestic partnership becomes a kind of civil marriage that does not require a church blessing or other ceremony but is essentially a marriage.
Church marriages can also contain the elements of civil marriage. Or, as in other countries, a couple would have a civil ceremony or sign the proper civil law papers then go to the church for the appropriate religious marriage.
If you don't belong to that religion...no need to go to the church.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Concerned Citizen Federal Govt Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:29 AM
On the subject of Domestic Partner Benefits, I feel that since the laws that we live and work under are ratified and accepted as the Law of the Land, we have to accept them even if we don't agree with them. Domestic Partners are no different than relative who needs insurance coverage and, they are not the children of the relative who is insured. They can not be covered per the law to receive benefits under that relative's insurance because they are not recognized by the law as the child of that relative. So, it is with Domestic Partners, they are not recognized by Laws in most States, therefore, if they want insurance they should have to obtain it as an "Individual" and not as a "Domestic Partner" because they are not recognized as "Married Partners" in most states as defined in the law of our land, neither in the Law of Bible.
I would say to the "Chief Engineer" there are and ways to share your benefits with your Domestic Partner - its called "A Will" - not by changing the Law.
more
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DOD Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:39 AM
Perhaps health benefits and retirement benefits shouldn't be tied to a traditional marriage model.
If health care were easily obtainable by all, then that issue would not be tied to traditional marriage any longer. If the rules for pensions were able to be freed from traditional marriage, maybe "willable" to someone who is in a economicly committed relationship without concern to what that relationship is socially, it would work? That or the demise of the fixed benefit might make it harder overall but easier to will the estate to anyone.
There are real issues regarding dependent children and household partners who are not breadwinners. But if those kinds of issues were resolved, then marriage as a commitment of "breeders" to a way of life and of raising children together would not be so attractive for the homosexuals.
I ironically expect to see heteros living together and homosexuals marrying in the near future.
To all of those opposed to equal rights for Gays and Lesbians there would be no issue if we were allowed to marry.
Why does the public get to decide who should have these rights? What if that were the case with desegrigation of schools or Blacks in the military?
Why should someone who feels that I am 'immoral' based on their religious beliefs decide issues that affect me?
Separation of church and state all the way. Federal gov't. is way behind making this change as well as allowing gays to be open in the military.
Kitties
Karl Nervous Hospital Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:03 PM
I'm nervous now because I had some coffee even tho I know it makes me nervous when i drink it.
Why can't this be extended to kitty kats? If I had one, and it would be a biggun, it would be my life partner and the law prohibits us from marrying as well.
Re: Kitties
Clerk DOI Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:15 PM
Animals don't reason on the same level as humans, therefore, they cannot (AND PROBABLY WOULD NOT) consent to human contracts.
Now, can we please keep the discussion to human-with-human relationships?!
silly gays
he who sees all agency against the immoralities of our society Wed Apr 8, 2009 6:07 PM
silly silly gays, marriage is for couples of a "different sex"
In simple terms
man + woman = marriage
man + man = who knows
woman + woman = more who knows
Re: silly gays
Telecomm Engineer DoD Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:09 AM
he who sees all = blind in both eyes
agency against the immoralities of our society = fundamentalist church with their own ideologies and beliefs.
man + man = know they have a commit relationship but self-righteous, close-minded individuals won't allow them to get married.
woman + woman = see above.
partner benefits
Specialist CDC Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:12 AM
My husband and I have a legally recognized common law marriage of 26 years. Although we don't have that piece of paper, we are legally married under Georgia law. Since this is a legal marriage in Georgia, it is also recognized by the federal government for IRS/tax purposes, and he is on my government insurance as my spouse. This would not be true for people just entering into this arrangement as Georgia quit recognizing common law marriages in the 1990s.
Civil marriage and health insurance
Claims Examiner DOL Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:41 AM
The Federal government should provide domestic partner benefits. Since gay and lesbian people cannot marry in most states this is the only fair thing to do.
I favor creating a civil marriage option in which anyone (gay or straight) who wishes to marry in the eyes of the law will use the same system. Civil marriage would confer the same tax benefits, health insurance access and other rights now accorded only to heterosexuals who choose to marry.
Those who wish to marry in the eyes of their deity may continue to do so but this form of marriage will not confer any particular legal advantages. No church, mosque or synagogue would be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to as this would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Nor would proponents of some religious views be able to stand in the way of gay marriages. This amounts to the imposition of a religious standard in civil life and is also a violation of the separation of church and state.
Burden and Benefit
Writer/Editor HHS Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:46 AM
If two persons share a household (bills, rent, mortgage etc) then according to strict ethics rules - the non-fed person is also now required to disclose all investment holdings/etc to avoid possible conflict of interest. Why should the non-fed partner bear the burden but not the benefit of being in a domicile relationship with another human? Let's get fair.
Torn
KM DSCP Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:31 AM
First, I think that the Gay and Lesbian community are tax paying Americans and we should not treat them differently based on their sexual orientation. I think they should be allowed to marry. Bottom Line.
But I think that allowing unmarried partners of ANY sexual orientation to receive benefits would allow millions of people to steal money from the government and cause great harm to our economy. Anyone could just say, "he or she is my domestic partner". How could the Government possibly police that?
And sorry, but if you are allowed to legally marry and you spend years as someone one's companion, rejoicing/suffering with them through all of life's ups/downs and you choose to STAY without the offer of marriage; or you both decide equally that you don't want to be married..then that is a choice that YOU make! Why should the government pay you because YOU decided you didn't want to be married or...the person you turned over your heart and life to, didn't want to marry you?
enough is enough
veteraninlove none Fri Jun 5, 2009 7:17 PM
I am veteran from the iraq war and i am fed up of hearing that i can not marry the person i am in love with and if i do i will lose my compensation. i served my country a healthy soldier came home a disable veteran but i cant marry the love of my life the woman who stands behind me who takes care of me when i am sick who drives me to the doctors. enough is enough that is what i say....we are mothers,fathers,daughters,sons,veterans,AMERICANS so let us be!!!!!!!!!
Re: enough is enough
me me Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:53 PM
Thank you for your service.
But the fact that you served your country, and I'm sure with great honor, does not mean that anybody you love should be considered your husband or your wife, even though you may consider them to be such.
What if you did not have a love of your life, and instead your sister was the person that drove you to doctor's appointments and took care of you when you were sick?
If domestic partner legislation was passed, would you not be equally justified in asking why your sister could not be your domestic partner?
Definitions matter. Until the US comes to a greater consensus on what marriage actually is, it will do much more harm than good to introduce domestic partner benefits.
Homosexual couples in the Navy
IT1 US NAVY Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:15 AM
Homosexuality is punishable under UCMJ Article 125. Yet we in the Navy have to suffer through senior enlisted living in open lesbian domestic partnerships while the brass look the other way. This is common, sickening and frankly makes me sick to have to serve in these conditions.
Re: Homosexual couples in the Navy
CCS BOP Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:18 PM
Under what conditons are you living? Are you being forced to live with these lesbians and what, do their laundry? Grow up, their life is of no concern to you.
Domestic Partner is not a legal joining
HUD
Tue Apr 7, 2009 8:13 PM
With the desire to have homosexuals have benefits for their domestic partner then this invites heterosexuals to have benefits for their domestic partner. I for one would prefer this be accomplished via a civil union which is how all couples should be joined legally as the marriage is a church institution. Let churches perform a marriage ceremony for who they want but for legality's sake, the civil union needs to be the vehicle to get benefits regardless of sexual preference. As more states recognize homosexual marriage and homosexual civil unions this will soon become an even more pressing issue for federal benefits and IRS tax issues in addition to all the other official functions that we've let become joined at the hip through church sponsored marriage. Get government out of the church and marriage business, let government certify the civil union for legal purposes and let churches do the marriage thing as they and their diety see fit.
Re: Domestic Partner is not a legal joining
FAA
Thu Apr 9, 2009 6:06 AM
If you believe in Darwin, marriage was a convenience that evolved between a man and a woman to propogate their DNA. So gay marriage again is a bad idea.
I guess the only people who should think it's a good idea are those folks who thing the Earth was seeded by space aliens (such as the Scientologists).
Everybody else fits into one of the other categories.
DOMESTIC PARTNER'S BENEFITS
MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND
Wed Apr 8, 2009 4:25 AM
As an unmarried 32 year employee with retirement less than 5 years away, I am all for Domestic Partner Benefits reform.
Those of us that have chosen to not marry are paying into a system that will eventually deprive our partners of survivor benefits. It is about time the laws are changed so I can share both my health care and survivor retirements benefits with my partner.
Those that fear their taxes would benefit a minority group should consider that it is currently be unfair for my taxes to benefit solely those who are married. I look forward to the day I retire and am able to take the reduced benefit so that I may leave my partner (and family) financially safe and secure.
Re: DOMESTIC PARTNER'S BENEFITS
Federal government
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:29 AM
I am against those just living together, no matter how committed they are, having shared benefits as a married couple since they do not have the same legal obligations of a married couple.
This is not a moral or Biblical issue. it is a fairness and rights issue. Hopefully, it will be treated that way.
This concept was mentioned in the article by the original author. I elaborated.
Am I missing something ...
DoD
Wed Apr 8, 2009 5:36 AM
You know, I just don't get it? Why do heterosexual couples always talk about the sanctity of marriage and how same sex marriages are an abomination ... case in point ... a woman that I work with, her son has been married twice to different women. The first marriage was 3 months and the second was 11 months. Both times her son was living with these women. So it appears that he can't commit when it comes to "being married". Why not let homosexual couples marry if they WANT to be committed? Why should heterosexual couples be allowed to ABUSE their marital rights and then deny homosexual couples the right to even become married? I just don't get it! Please explain it to me! This is NOT the first time I heard of situations with heterosexual couples such as this!
Re: Am I missing something ...
USCIS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:36 AM
Re: Am I missing something ...
Air Force
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:57 AM
Your friend's relationship may be "serious," but it's not "committed." To deny his 15-year partner and mother of his child the rights of a spouse is selfish and irresponsible. He may be true to the vow he made himself, but he isn't being true to his partner.
To the overall subject:
Whether partners avoid or are denied civial union status for these long-term relationships, the result is the same. Surviving partners and children of people not legally bound suffer because of their lack of "married" status. Law should allow it, and "committed" couples should show that committment through civil union.
Re: Am I missing something ...
USDA
Wed Apr 8, 2009 1:17 PM
Re: Am I missing something ...
USACE
Thu Apr 9, 2009 12:27 AM
I do not favor marriage or any other sanction for partnership or whatever you wish to call it. I will also caution, ney WARN. you that some day you will face God. God does not approve of homosexuality - or of the mess many heterosexuals have made of things. The time is now, get right with the Lord.
Re: Am I missing something ...
DoD
Thu Apr 9, 2009 4:50 AM
homosexuals that want to show their commitment to one another, the right to marry? That's what I don't get.
Specialist, two words for your comment ... "Yes, Dear." ;-)
Benefits to those not legally married
Retired DoD, FAA, US Customs
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:10 AM
The poll is split and I do not think that there is a softening. Some states are still pushing and have approved same sex marriage. Many do not agree to same sex marriage. I also do not agree to hetersexual benefits for those not in a marriage. For gays, marriage is between one man and one woman and that is the divine plan. Plan other legal ways of taking care of the partner. For those in a hetersexual situation unmarried, get married for the benefits. Laws reflect civilization and it appears that the more decadent we get, the worst it is. I am sticking to my values and speaking up. If you disagree, so be it but do not offend me and others by benefits out of marriage. Everyone has a hand out...do the right thing to marry if you are hetersexual. If not, work with the lawyer to protect your gay partner in other ways. If you are smart, it can be done.
Re: Benefits to those not legally married
Federal government
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:35 AM
Divine Plan relates to G-d which violates the rule regarding religion. Your arguments should relate to why homosexual couples who want to share married couples obligations and rights should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples who are married. I cannot justify your position.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Navy Supply Information Systems Activity
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:30 AM
Legally, what is the definition of a domestic partner? Is it a matter of two people that aren't related signing a form?
Re: Domestic Partner Benefits
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:14 AM
The issue is not signing a form. The issue is taking the responsibilities, legal and otherwise, of marriage. If two whether gay or heterosexuals, take that obligation, then they should have the benefits.
Domestic Partner Benefits
DHS/FLETC
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:34 AM
It is about time the feds realized that the world is changing - benefits are offered to common law couples and divorced spouses (which can be multiple). Open the door to benefits for committed gay couples. It is time to do the right thing for us all.
Survey
Syracuse VA Medical Center
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:37 AM
Again I repeat my comment, SEIU stands by it's members and understands the needs of todays members. We do provide same sex benifits for our brothers and sisters, as should the Federal Sector.
The survey speaks for itself we need to cover all of our Federal Employees including same sex commited couples and not exclude them.
Equality
Department of the Interior
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:45 AM
Where would the line be drawn. I am a single (divorced) mother and I choose not to have a relationship (either heterosexual or homosexual). My children are grown but some do not have health benefits. If we are allowing health, life, vision, and dental benefits to same sex partners, I would like to include my children, grandchildren, friends, and neighbors on my benefit plan.
Re: Equality
Syracuse VA Medical Center
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:13 AM
Re: Equality
DOE
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:27 AM
I've been with my partner in a healthy and loving same sex relationship for over 20 years. I would marry her in a heartbeat if it were legal.
I am helping to pay for the benefits of other people's spouses and I would like the same benefits for my spouse.
What that has to do with your neighbor's and friend's employement benefits is beyond me. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of a loving and commited lifetime relationship.
I realize my post is snarky, but I'm so tired of people thinking that gay people love their partners less than straight people. It sickens me to read remarks that equates my relationship with my life partner to someone's relationship with their dog/neighbor/friend etc.
Domestic Partner Benefits
IRS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:50 AM
I too believe this is inevitable. However, I believe there should be much more emphasis on our college-age children before domestic partners. For instance, my 3 children will turn 19 years old a few months after graduation (all born in the fall), thus will be in college until they are at least 23 years of age (for 4 years) and their health/dental benefits entitlement will expire before they graduate from college, especially if they go to college beyond 4 years.
Re: Domestic Partner Benefits
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:21 AM
Just out of curiosity, what should the maximum age for children be.
I am paying over $300/mo for one child and will have to do this for a second child soon. By then my first will be working and will have his own plan.
Domestic partners bemfits
USEPA
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:55 AM
I am very conflicted on this issue as a former Equal Opportunity Specialist, I can see the Civil rights implications and it seems only fair to give partners of feds the benefits and the issue is what is a committed relationship how will we define it. I believe 5-6 states recoginize gay unions (marriage). Do we only give status to those unions that have been sanction by one of those states? With regard to hetereosexuals relationship, I think not. the individuals in those relationship have made a conscious choice not to get married unlike gay and lesbians who have no choice they, for the most part are not allowed to marry.
Special treatment not equality
Federal
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:55 AM
If everyone is so interested in "equality" then why don't they do what the rest of us have done? Meet the convention as required.
People who are not legally married do not meet the convention and those that said "partnerships" are also transient are often correct.
I have known unmarried couples who have remained together for over 20 or so years however why should they be "more equal" than the rest of us? I'm sick of making exceptions for the few at the expense of the majority.
They aren't asking for equality but special treatment. Why do they merit special treatment, because they flaunt convention?
Re: Special treatment not equality
DOI
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:22 AM
Furthermore, we're not talking about coverage for all people. We're talking about extended an employment benefit to all employees. Companies normally extend certain benefits to all married couples, but only to their children through college, and not to parents, grandparents, etc. Those who object under the premise that they can't extend their coverage seem to be missing the point.
Re: Special treatment not equality
DOE, Albuquerque
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:41 AM
Re: Special treatment not equality
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:28 AM
The problem with your argument is that same sex couples are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the same treatment as heterosexual couples who are committed to marriage. You cannot justify marriage (or its equivilent) being limited to heterosexuals without using religion, which violates the first amendment concerning the establishment of a religion.
Allow gay people to marry or an equivilent and have the benefits and liabilities of a married couple.
Employee plus one
Fed Agency
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:56 AM
I favor a plan of "employee plus one," letting the employee decide who that additional person is - spouse, partner, sibling, parent. Please don't feed me the line that gay people are as committed or more committed to their partners than straight people are to their spouses. We all know exceptions in both camps.
Other post-ers are correct - you can make arrangements to financially provide for another person either by saving or purchasing life insurance. Term life insurance is cheap (if you buy when you are young), you can name the beneficiary of your choice, and if you aren't married and don't subsequently have to get divorced, the courts cannot force you to maintain a certain person as beneficiary. Oh right, now the insurance companies are asking for bail-out money, too. . . .
Rome & Sex
DOD
Wed Apr 8, 2009 8:59 AM
Everything isn't about sex. Rome fell for many reasons; sex and God's wrath isn't one of them. France has a workable process. Marriage has two components - a civil ceremony to satisfy the requirements of the state (legal) and a church ceremony to satisfy religious requirements. To be married in the eyes of the state, a person has the civil ceremoney. To be married in the eyes of your church family, a religious ceremoney is performed. So non-believers are just as married as those who have both ceremonies. Marriage is not in trouble because gays want it. Believers need to determine why marriages fail; "no divorce" is not the answer. Where's the religious outcry on fringe groups of Mormons & "celestrial" marriages in which a man has several wives?
Domestic Partners Benefits
USAF
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:11 AM
This is totally insane!!! You are opening the Government up to massive fraud. Not only that but it is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Opinion
DFAS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:12 AM
This is not a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights to not apply to sexual orientation. I agree with those who say if you are going to provide benefits to unmarried couples, then I want to be able to cover my adult son.
Besides, it opens this up to fraud, if you cover unmarried partners where gay or not, people can say they are a couple and get the coverage even when they are not actually partners.
Re: Opinion
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:34 AM
Also there is no fraud if the marriage or civil union has a legal obligation. It must be registered with the state. If the couple splits, then divorce proceedings, with those headaches, must occur.
Just because you and I are heterosexual, that does not mean we must impose it on others.
Re: Opinion
DOI
Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:22 PM
Domestic Partner Benefits
CBP
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:13 AM
Whether heterosexual or homosexual, if someone chooses to have a life partner, who should limit that? No one. Your wife/husband gets benefits, domestic partners should get benefits. IF they could marry, many would.
discrimination abounds still
NPS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:27 AM
It makes me ill to see such a large amount of feds still happily discriminating against others. Marriage is whatever the couple makes it, regardless of gender, sexuality, or religious bent. There are mass quantities of people who for TAX reasons won't marry. Domestic partnership is just as serious as a marriage. And it only depends on your circumstance whether its easy or not to dissolve either a marriage or a partnership! For those who cry "cost" issues, get real. Its just a form of 'not in my backyard'. Since you have yours, too bad for everyone else. That's just plain greed and small minded.
Re: discrimination abounds still
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:42 AM
Homosexual couples are not permitted to share in those benefits and obligations. This is wrong and should be allowed to do so
Re: discrimination abounds still
US Citizen
Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:56 PM
Health Insurance for Gay's
Internal Revenue Service
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:28 AM
I say NO. They are not entitled to receive the same benefits as those of us who are Man (Male) and Wife (Female) in a marriage.
There should never be a man living with a man or a woman living with a woman for the purpose of a marriage or a relationship between them.
This is WRONG IN THE EYES OF GOD, and that is what this country was founded on.
We need to remove this from any type action.
They are able to work and provide for themselves.
If this passes, why can I not get family coverage to cover my daughter who has ovarian cancer and is over 18 years of age. She is not able to work (lost her job due to illness).
Re: Health Insurance for Gay's
Defense Logistics Agency
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:15 AM
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Re: Health Insurance for Gay's
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:53 AM
OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...
USCIS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:29 AM
Before you can go granting what are marital "benefits" (I say obligations) if you will, you must realize that no matter what the state may say, there is already a US law regarding marriage.
From the FAM:
99 FAM 40.1 N1.1 Marriage and Spouse Defined
(CT:VISA-1000; 09-03-2008)
a. Section 7 of the Defense of Marriage Act (Public Law 104-199) states:
“The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one
woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a
person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Don't like the law, call your Congressman and/or Senator. Any state (there are three) that allows same-sex marriage is in violation of this law. I hope that we can get the Court to handle this matter soon to settle it once and for the next couple of years.
As such, since they do not qualify as a spouse under federal law, and should not be granted the rights and privileges as such.
As before, if you don't like the law...
Re: OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...
DHS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:00 PM
Re: OK, when do we stop ignoring the law...
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:07 AM
The last two appointed members, including the current supreme court justice, said they would respect precedent. They then voted to support a federal abortion law that was nearly the same as a state law that was declared unconstitutional. Their reasoning was so flimsy that any half wit could see right through it.
Both cases were decided by a 5-4 margin.
All that will happen is that this law will will be declared constitutional by 5-4 until a radical right judge is replaced. Then it will be declared unconstitutional.
Domestic Partners Benefits
Fish & Wildlife
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:30 AM
I'm confused. Can you clarify the domestic partners benefits. The reason I ask is there is a gal that I work with that has a common law husband that she currently is getting govenernment medical insurance for him and has for the last 5 years.
Re: Domestic Partners Benefits
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:10 AM
Unless there is fraud?
Re: Domestic Partners Benefits
DOI
Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:13 PM
benefits for domestic partnership
sec
Wed Apr 8, 2009 9:40 AM
don't we heterosexal folks count also. as stated in a previous comment --i have been with my boyfriend since 1981 & we can't get benefits either way?? and i consider myself married & committed to each other.
the only way we can get anyhting is to "will" it to each other
Re: benefits for domestic partnership
Syracuse VA Medical Center
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:16 AM
Same sex partner benefits
Defense Logistics Agency
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:59 AM
Some day we will all look back on these types of conversations the way we now look back at segregation laws from before the Civil Rights Movement. We will all be ashamed that people could be so closed minded towards people's rights just because they are different from us.
Health Insurance for Gays
Department of Veterans Affairs
Wed Apr 8, 2009 10:59 AM
If your daughter is under the age of 22 and not married, you should have 60 days from the day she lost her health insurance coverage to pick up the family option and cover her under your health insurance as long as you are carrying health insurance on yourself. As we all know, the government does not recognize pre-existing conditions so you should be fine. Talk to your HR office and see what can be done. I think we are opening ourselves up to alot of problems with all of this. I totally understand being in a committed relationship but there will be alot of people who will take advantage of this if it passes if we do not put rules in place to define what a committed relationship is. I can see people moving in together just to get the insurance.
Why should I be punished???
IRS
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:02 AM
I live with my "domestic partner" of a different sex, we own a house together, we have foster children (adoption is cost prohibitive at this point), we pay taxes (property and income) and I pay into my retirement fund...yet if I die, most of my money will just go back to the government and not to my family because I am not married. Why am I punished?? Because I have different views on marriage and refuse to be forced into doing something I don't want, the money I have "earned" by working here is just gone??
That sounds like a pretty stupid reason to get married and pop out some children if you ask me. Why bring more children into an over crowded world, when we chose to do a good thing and care for other people's children when they can't---and we're punished for it by a good chunk of my benefits just disappearing should I die?
I have more morals than most people I know, and marriage certificate should not be a judgement of that.
Re: Why should I be punished???
Federal government
Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:14 AM
I doubt it. If you split(hypothetical) what happens vs. what happens if you are married?
Gay people cannot have the choice of marriage(or its equivilent). That is the proble.
Definition of marriage
DOD
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:27 AM
Common Law used to refer to the marriage of anyone not noble. It didn't have the same level of contract as noble marriages were often also treaties and business contracts. Common people just became husbands and wives and started a life together with various degrees of ceremony. Living together as husband and wife pretty well made you that.
If we consider domestic partnerships to be common law marriages, or civil marriages and define the rights and responsibilities to each other that such a committment carries, then I don't see the problem.
Domestic partnership becomes a kind of civil marriage that does not require a church blessing or other ceremony but is essentially a marriage.
Church marriages can also contain the elements of civil marriage. Or, as in other countries, a couple would have a civil ceremony or sign the proper civil law papers then go to the church for the appropriate religious marriage.
If you don't belong to that religion...no need to go to the church.
Domestic Partner Benefits
Federal Govt
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:29 AM
On the subject of Domestic Partner Benefits, I feel that since the laws that we live and work under are ratified and accepted as the Law of the Land, we have to accept them even if we don't agree with them. Domestic Partners are no different than relative who needs insurance coverage and, they are not the children of the relative who is insured. They can not be covered per the law to receive benefits under that relative's insurance because they are not recognized by the law as the child of that relative. So, it is with Domestic Partners, they are not recognized by Laws in most States, therefore, if they want insurance they should have to obtain it as an "Individual" and not as a "Domestic Partner" because they are not recognized as "Married Partners" in most states as defined in the law of our land, neither in the Law of Bible.
I would say to the "Chief Engineer" there are and ways to share your benefits with your Domestic Partner - its called "A Will" - not by changing the Law.
more
DOD
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:39 AM
Perhaps health benefits and retirement benefits shouldn't be tied to a traditional marriage model.
If health care were easily obtainable by all, then that issue would not be tied to traditional marriage any longer. If the rules for pensions were able to be freed from traditional marriage, maybe "willable" to someone who is in a economicly committed relationship without concern to what that relationship is socially, it would work? That or the demise of the fixed benefit might make it harder overall but easier to will the estate to anyone.
There are real issues regarding dependent children and household partners who are not breadwinners. But if those kinds of issues were resolved, then marriage as a commitment of "breeders" to a way of life and of raising children together would not be so attractive for the homosexuals.
I ironically expect to see heteros living together and homosexuals marrying in the near future.
Rights for Domestic Partners
Veterans Affairs
Wed Apr 8, 2009 11:54 AM
To all of those opposed to equal rights for Gays and Lesbians there would be no issue if we were allowed to marry.
Why does the public get to decide who should have these rights? What if that were the case with desegrigation of schools or Blacks in the military?
Why should someone who feels that I am 'immoral' based on their religious beliefs decide issues that affect me?
Separation of church and state all the way. Federal gov't. is way behind making this change as well as allowing gays to be open in the military.
Kitties
Nervous Hospital
Wed Apr 8, 2009 2:03 PM
I'm nervous now because I had some coffee even tho I know it makes me nervous when i drink it.
Why can't this be extended to kitty kats? If I had one, and it would be a biggun, it would be my life partner and the law prohibits us from marrying as well.
Re: Kitties
DOI
Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:15 PM
Now, can we please keep the discussion to human-with-human relationships?!
silly gays
agency against the immoralities of our society
Wed Apr 8, 2009 6:07 PM
silly silly gays, marriage is for couples of a "different sex"
In simple terms
man + woman = marriage
man + man = who knows
woman + woman = more who knows
Re: silly gays
DoD
Thu Apr 9, 2009 5:09 AM
agency against the immoralities of our society = fundamentalist church with their own ideologies and beliefs.
man + man = know they have a commit relationship but self-righteous, close-minded individuals won't allow them to get married.
woman + woman = see above.
partner benefits
CDC
Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:12 AM
My husband and I have a legally recognized common law marriage of 26 years. Although we don't have that piece of paper, we are legally married under Georgia law. Since this is a legal marriage in Georgia, it is also recognized by the federal government for IRS/tax purposes, and he is on my government insurance as my spouse. This would not be true for people just entering into this arrangement as Georgia quit recognizing common law marriages in the 1990s.
Civil marriage and health insurance
DOL
Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:41 AM
The Federal government should provide domestic partner benefits. Since gay and lesbian people cannot marry in most states this is the only fair thing to do.
I favor creating a civil marriage option in which anyone (gay or straight) who wishes to marry in the eyes of the law will use the same system. Civil marriage would confer the same tax benefits, health insurance access and other rights now accorded only to heterosexuals who choose to marry.
Those who wish to marry in the eyes of their deity may continue to do so but this form of marriage will not confer any particular legal advantages. No church, mosque or synagogue would be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to as this would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Nor would proponents of some religious views be able to stand in the way of gay marriages. This amounts to the imposition of a religious standard in civil life and is also a violation of the separation of church and state.
Burden and Benefit
HHS
Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:46 AM
If two persons share a household (bills, rent, mortgage etc) then according to strict ethics rules - the non-fed person is also now required to disclose all investment holdings/etc to avoid possible conflict of interest. Why should the non-fed partner bear the burden but not the benefit of being in a domicile relationship with another human? Let's get fair.
Torn
DSCP
Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:31 AM
First, I think that the Gay and Lesbian community are tax paying Americans and we should not treat them differently based on their sexual orientation. I think they should be allowed to marry. Bottom Line.
But I think that allowing unmarried partners of ANY sexual orientation to receive benefits would allow millions of people to steal money from the government and cause great harm to our economy. Anyone could just say, "he or she is my domestic partner". How could the Government possibly police that?
And sorry, but if you are allowed to legally marry and you spend years as someone one's companion, rejoicing/suffering with them through all of life's ups/downs and you choose to STAY without the offer of marriage; or you both decide equally that you don't want to be married..then that is a choice that YOU make! Why should the government pay you because YOU decided you didn't want to be married or...the person you turned over your heart and life to, didn't want to marry you?
enough is enough
none
Fri Jun 5, 2009 7:17 PM
I am veteran from the iraq war and i am fed up of hearing that i can not marry the person i am in love with and if i do i will lose my compensation. i served my country a healthy soldier came home a disable veteran but i cant marry the love of my life the woman who stands behind me who takes care of me when i am sick who drives me to the doctors. enough is enough that is what i say....we are mothers,fathers,daughters,sons,veterans,AMERICANS so let us be!!!!!!!!!
Re: enough is enough
me
Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:53 PM
But the fact that you served your country, and I'm sure with great honor, does not mean that anybody you love should be considered your husband or your wife, even though you may consider them to be such.
What if you did not have a love of your life, and instead your sister was the person that drove you to doctor's appointments and took care of you when you were sick?
If domestic partner legislation was passed, would you not be equally justified in asking why your sister could not be your domestic partner?
Definitions matter. Until the US comes to a greater consensus on what marriage actually is, it will do much more harm than good to introduce domestic partner benefits.
Homosexual couples in the Navy
US NAVY
Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:15 AM
Homosexuality is punishable under UCMJ Article 125. Yet we in the Navy have to suffer through senior enlisted living in open lesbian domestic partnerships while the brass look the other way. This is common, sickening and frankly makes me sick to have to serve in these conditions.
Re: Homosexual couples in the Navy
BOP
Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:18 PM