Are we being "Punished" for not being gay?

[septbride2002]

Yes it is unfair that your company recognizes gay partners rights and not your own. And I think your should take it up with your company. If they are going to have domestic partner rights then it should include those of a heterosexual relationship. I would start talking to your Human Resource department about it immediately.

My company offers domestic partner benefits to both homosexual and heterosexual households. There are parameters set up so that no one abuses the system but it does cover everyone and is one of the reasons I like working for this company.

You are not being punished for being straight. The idea of domestic partner benefits is in it's infancy and needs to be tinkered with.

~Amanda

 

[AllyandJack]

I don't mean to nit-pick at something that wasn't the main issue, but did they really say you had to have the same name?? I don't have the same last name as my DH. Would we also be denied the dining card??

I think a domestic partner is a domestic partner....gay or straight.

 

[snoopy]

Without re-hashing the gay marriage issue that has been so thoroughly 'discussed' on the last couple of pages, I have an observation specifically about the OP's situation. It seems to me like when it works FOR them (e.g. health insurance coverage -paid for by employer or dining card benefits, etc.) then they WANT to be treated by society as if they were married. When it doesn't work FOR them (division of assets, avoiding certain legal obligations of an official marriage,) they DON'T WANT to be treated by society as being married. Isn't this a 'can't have it both ways' scenario?

Yup, bringing it back to the original post, I agree 100%. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[wvrevy]

1 - To the OP...Someone above stated that it seemed that you want the benefits of being married, but without any of the risks. Gay couples do not have that choice. Is your company's policy unfair ? Yes. But it is made necessary by the unfair laws that do not allow gay men and women to make that choice for themselves.

2 - If the "next logical step" for you after gay marriage is beastiality, then I'd suggest you may have deeply rooted psychological issues with the idea of being gay. The fact that you equate what two people do WITH each other in their own home with what some sick individual does TO an animal says much more about you than it does them.

3 - If there is a "slippery slope" that we would step upon by legalizing gay marriage, the next step would be "Group" marriage, including polygamy. Personally, I could care less if a group of people - be it one man with more than one woman, one woman with more than one man, or a group of each - want to share their lives together and legally tie themselves to each other. So long as the relationship is consentual, why should anyone else care ?

4 - In this country, you should have to prove your reasoning for not giving someone the right to do something, not the other way around. If the bigots want to prohibit gay marriage, then they should have to prove that being gay is a choice, and not simply a natural occurence. Even if they could manage that - and they can't - they should still have to show who was harmed by allowing that right to anyone that wants to excersize it.

5 - To those that would argue that marriage isn't a "right", I would simply ask if they would support a law stating that people of different races should not be allowed to marry. After all, if there is no "right" to marriage, then such a law should be constitutional, right ? So, I wonder why it is that every Jim Crow law of that sort has been struck down over the years ?

 

[froglady]

I also do not see anything wrong with polygomy IF it only involves consenting adults, and IF the person with multiple spouses can support all of them(or they are self-supporting), and any resulting children.

 

[va32h]

It seems to me like when it works FOR them (e.g. health insurance coverage -paid for by employer or dining card benefits, etc.) then they WANT to be treated by society as if they were married. When it doesn't work FOR them (division of assets, avoiding certain legal obligations of an official marriage,) they DON'T WANT to be treated by society as being married. Isn't this a 'can't have it both ways' scenario?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

[icebrat001]

I'll probably get flamed for this.

But it's about time we (as in myself and the milions of other homosexuals in this nation) get something that our opposite sex neighbors can usually get with no problem. Because of this new clause I can get added on my partners insurance during the next open period!

Having said that, with both same sex and opposite sex relationships, I do not understand how they can issue a second dining card with no proof that you are actually in a relationship, for all they know you are friends. That applies to the insurance thing soon. Hopefully they change it to accomodate everyone soon.

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

 

[wvrevy]

I also do not see anything wrong with polygomy IF it only involves consenting adults, and IF the person with multiple spouses can support all of them(or they are self-supporting), and any resulting children.

Marriage, in a legal sense, is nothing more than a contract between two individuals. This contract grants certain privileges and assigns certain responsibilities, depending upon the laws of the state granting the marriage. Without bringing "traditional morality" into the equation, there simply is no valid argument against "plural" marriages. Of course it wouldn't be something that everybody was interested in - myself included, btw - but I don't see why that is something that should prevent those that wish to engage in such a contract from doing so.

This is the difference, in my opinion, in the two sides of the gay marriage argument as well. One side wishes to impose it's version of "morality" on everyone else, while the other wishes to live and let live. Bob's marriage to Ted isn't going to have an affect of my marriage, so why should I care if they are married or not ?

 

[RickinNYC]

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)

Pretty interesting way of stating law and yet still denying folks basic human rights. Then again, this comment comes as no surprise.

To the OP, no, your situation is NOT fair by any stretch. I've actually never heard that ever happening before. I don't deny it did by the way, I'm just surprised that something like that could even be legal. But in this day of finding God in the loopholes, nothing would surprise me.

If I were you, I'd fight tooth and nail until this was satisfied fairly.

 

[dcentity2000]

Article 14 of the Human Rights Act (UK, from Europe):

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

That's where it ends for me. Equality is the cornerstone of human rights and should be fought for and cherished. Any suggestion to the contrary is shameful.

And by the way, I am aware of practical exceptions to this case (disabled persons as front line troops, anyone?) My point was that equality should be yearned for and manifested in society insofar as is humanly possible.



Rich::

 

[bubie2.5]

The government isn't (and shouldn't) be concerned about love.

It shouldn't be concerned with religion also, but it is.

To the OP, no, it's not fair, but don't worry, as soon as same sex marriages become a reality, companies won't have to provide their gay and lesbian workers little "extras".

 

[bubie2.5]

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.

In that case, then the OP it's not being "penalized" then. She has the same rights as gays and lesbians, she could be in a ss relationship and have ensurance for her partner in she wanted.

 

[bubie2.5]

The laws are being changed to accomodate a select group of people and not to the entire population.

Laws are not being change, it's a private company and their private insurance. Their money, their laws.

 

[WatchinCaptKangaroo]

You may be able to register as "domestic partners" which might give you the ability to add him to your insurance and other "perks" without getting married.

 

[swilphil]

I agree. They should be allow to marry. The good , the bad, and the other.

I don't think that overcompensation is "fair" either. To allow a short-term couple benefits and not allow another is wrong, IMO. Not every gay couple wants to marry. Not all are like TV "couples." Real life is much more hard-core and transient. It just doesn't make good tv. Many of the gay men I know relish that life-style. And it is entirely their business. I just don't want to pay their insurance, etc.

I know many more hetero men who relish a lifestyle where they want to have multiple partners without the commitment of marriage.

As previously stated, in many states a man and woman who cohabitat for several years have a "common law" marriage plus they can choose to marry after they know each other for a few years or a few days.

 

[InderellaCay]

I know many more hetero men who relish a lifestyle where they want to have multiple partners without the commitment of marriage.

True, but their insurance isn't covered!

As previously stated, in many states a man and woman who cohabitat for several years have a "common law" marriage plus they can choose to marry after they know each other for a few years or a few days.

True. It still is a double standard. 7 years or a few months. It is discrimination.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

To the OP, yes, I would call that discrimination.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is why my sisters now-hubby's company allows perks to those who are in--I forget the phrasing...but they did not have to be married, just living together and partners.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Perhaps companies should consider having benefits (at an appropriate price/deductible) to everyone in the "household," that is, all those living at the same residence.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The other side of the argument is why not? Why should marriage be the deciding factor for getting such benefits? Are we rewarding some people or are we punishing others?

Come to think of it--all any company is required to do is pay you minimum wage and pay your overtime if you are hourly...

the benefits are extra and can be applied however they wish without discrimination.

It isn't so much "rewarding" a relationship as it is providing an enticement for you to work for the company--so that you can take care of your family.

And for the OP--if she was in a relationship but chose not to be married..that would be more akin to a gay couple who cannot get married (but one day might be able to). If I am reading correctly..they are pretty much living as roommates.

In any case--the companies can choose to offer a benefit or not, but there really is no law that requires them to do so other than minimum wage, maximum work week, and FMLA (only for a company that meets a minimum size,that I don't recall at the moment). And depending on the state--the meal breaks would be required per state law as well.

Other than that--the company is not obligated to do anything and the only reason they do is to take care of their employees as to entice them to apply there and stay there.