Are we being "Punished" for not being gay?

[Mickey527]

Ok, I am sure this topic will get tons of flames. But I don't mean it to be, I just need to vent.
I am female and a male moved in with me a few years ago. I have no intention of getting married again. Been there, done that. My boys are 29, 27, and 22 and they understand how I feel about marriage for me. I encourage them to get married and on has already, so I am not down on it for everyone, just for me. I don't feel I need to be married and I have worked hard for everything I have and intend for my children to get it all when I die. I have done the will and my friend won't be able to claim cohabitation because of the will, but if I was married he would automatically get everything when I die. I am not planning on that for a long time I hope but I did have a scare last year and looked into everything.
Last summer I signed up for the Disney Dining card. I was able to get the card in my name but they wouldn't give me one for my friend because he didn't have the same name as I did. They told me that if I was in a same sex relationship they could give me a 2nd card in my "live-in's" name but since we are opposite sex they can only give one to me.
My place of employment just got a new clause on our insurance that they will cover insurance for "partners". I would love to cover my friend because he is disabled and has no health insurance of his own and goes to the VA for medical care. He has to pay $75 per visit and all his medication and tests come out of his disability check. He gets very little in disability because he didn't put much into SS before he was disabled.
I called Human Resources and they told me that the insurance is only for "same-sex" partners, not for opposite sex cohabitators.
I can't understand how companies can make this claim, that they will cover same-sex but not opposite unless you are married.
what do you think? Peggie

 

[Sian]

It does seem very unfair. The only explanation I can think of is that the intention is not to penalise gay couples who do not have the option to get married. Perhaps if gay marriage was allowed everywhere then co-habiting gay couples would be excluded from these benefits too. Still, I can understand your grievance.

 

[Missy1961]

That's what it is---when gay couples can legally marry, they too will have the same provisions.

 

[snoopy]

The difference I see is you still have the right to legally marry....same sex couples don't.

 

[drgnfly30]

I think it may depend on the policy your company chose.. my company (in the last 2 or 3 years) started covering "eligible adults", same sex partners, domestic partners, elder parent living with the insured etc...

 

[mbw12]

The difference I see is you still have the right to legally marry....same sex couples don't.

that is how I see it too. While it sort of doesn't seem fair to you.....gay couples don't have the option of getting legally married, while you still do. You may choose not to....and that is fine, but than you know that part of the choice you are making involves no benefits for your SO. Gay couples don't have the option to decide whether or not they want to get married, they can't legally.

 

[pattyT]

they can move to MA now

i was surprised when the company I use to work for was aquired by the New York Times - and we had a big benefits meeting - one of the photogaphers asked about benefits for opposite sex partners - i had never even THOUGHT it was an option... it was available through our previous owners and had been for years...

you don't want to know my opinion on all this (actually that <--- sounds worse than it is - I better give my opinion - I think that healthcare should be provided through the government for ever individual)

 

[InderellaCay]

But, most couples do not marry after six months. Regionally that is when a gay partner can be covered. An exec. at my ofc. has had 6 partners covered in the last 5 years. It is a grossly unfair standard.

 

[bicker]

At this point, most folks who provide any acknowledgement of them consider civil unions to be equivalent to marriage, just aimed at a different sexual preference (specifically). So, in essence, heterosexual couples get married, homosexual couples have civil unions. Extending health benefits, for example, is done to ensure all families, whether they be covered by one of these institutions or the other, are covered. They're not intended to cover all types of social associations -- just the ones that are the most applicable partnership institution allowed by the laws of the applicable state.

 

[mbw12]

But, most couples do not marry after six months. Regionally that is when a gay partner can be covered. An exec. at my ofc. has had 6 partners covered in the last 5 years. It is a grossly unfair standard.

Correct...."most" couples do not get married 6 times in 5 years....but I am sure there are a few in the world. "most" gay couples don't have 6 serious relationships in 5 years.....don't use your boss' lifestyle as assuming the "norm" for most gay couples.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

The difference I see is you still have the right to legally marry....same sex couples don't.

Thanks snoopy. It is too early to weigh in on such topics so early.

I wanted to add that people are going to continue being gay and somewhere down the road we will fix this baloney. Then when you are gay you will have to follow the rules the same as everyone.

 

[RobinMarie]

You're not being punished for not being gay, you have the opportunity to marry and be protected by federal and state laws. Sounds like the OP will support the rights of gay marriage.

How you are eligible under a company's benefits is determined by the company's plan with the insurance agent. I have worked for a company years ago when 'life partner' was covered - this term covered legally defined spouses as well as other relationships.

 

[beattyfamily]

No, it isn't fair. edited to add that I am replying to the OP's question in case you don't understand....

 

[Puffy2]

Personally I think that if states would allow gay couples to marry or enter into a civil unions, this issue would be solved. But until states stops discriminating against gay couples, businesses that want to extend benefits to them will have to offer different means of doing so. You have the option of getting married. Gays don't (in most states).

You could argue for benefits for all people living under the same roof. I could invision yet another problem with that (multiple famlies living together, etc...).

Another option is a pre-nuptial agreement and go ahead and have a civil union. Remember, if you live with each other long enough, you'll become "common law" married anyway and you could still end up having legal problems if you decided to split up.

 

[InderellaCay]

Correct...."most" couples do not get married 6 times in 5 years....but I am sure there are a few in the world. "most" gay couples don't have 6 serious relationships in 5 years.....don't use your boss' lifestyle as assuming the "norm" for most gay couples.

But, I don't know anyone who has made "lifetime committments" that quickly. I realize he is an extreme example. I also realize that two other people I know are pretending to be gay to get the insurance. Think Bosom Buddies.

I think that anyone who wants to marry should, but if there are no legal ties that will make life difficult when a split occurs, no bennies! OR, bennies to all!

 

[Lisa F]

No, it isn't fair.

Oh, I agree 100%! It's so unfair that gay couples are not allowed to marry and have rights like the rest of us so that this is even an issue!

 

[Charade]

IMO, if a state doesn't legally recognize same sex relationships as married or civil unions, then they shouldn't get medical coverage the same way as a married heterosexual does. It isn't fair.

But... I can see it being left to individual companies if they want to extend benefits for "live together" partners regardless of gender. I can also see the chances for "abuse". IMO, we all know that as soon as gay marriage (or civil unions) become legal some same sex "roommates" will get hitched just to get benefits under the others company plan. I'm sure that some opposite sex "roommates" do it now. Kinda cheapens the whole "marriage" thing.

Having said that, I am against national health care provided by or administered by the government for the basic reason that the government can't run a business like most of the private sector can. You think it costs a lot now? Just let the government run and see how much it costs.

 

[Charade]

Oh, I agree 100%! It's so unfair that gay couples are not allowed to marry and have rights like the rest of us so that this is even an issue!

Yes they do. We (hetero's) can't marry someone of the same sex but we can marry someone of the opposite sex. Same thing applies for gay people.

Love has nothing to do with it and it shouldn't. The government isn't (and shouldn't) be concerned about love.

(and yes, I'm channeling Dave)

 

[InderellaCay]

Oh, I agree 100%! It's so unfair that gay couples are not allowed to marry and have rights like the rest of us so that this is even an issue!

But, as they say, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

 

[beattyfamily]

Oh, I agree 100%! It's so unfair that gay couples are not allowed to marry and have rights like the rest of us so that this is even an issue!

Nice try but I was replying to the OP and no one else. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

So you and I are not in agreement.