"No Same-Sex Partner Benefits Unless You're Married"

I mentioned in an earlier thread that the graduate employees at UMass have been bargaining for a new contract for an entire year.

This morning the administration proposed eliminating health benefits for the same-sex partners of grad employees... unless they can produce a marriage certificate. Already, some students, upon contacting University Health Services, have been denied same-sex partner coverage without a marriage certificate. Word apparently came down from Governor Mitt's office that this would be the new policy.

I'm really pissed about this and a little freaked out. I'm hoping this issue will wake up the community and local people will come out to support grad students and other UMass employees. UMass is really trying to screw us over.

. . . as it pertains to unmarried opposite-sex couples? Are they entitled to partner benefits?

for opposite-sex couples? If not, then isn't it kind of a reasonable position for the State to take, given that it's now legal for gay folks to marry there?

Massachusetts is saying marriage is marriage and shacking up is shacking up. Make the decision. Straights have to make it and gays now have to make exactly the same decision.

What bothers me is the idea that someone who currently *has* healthcare will be told to make a radical, life-changing decision in order to maintain his or her current standard of living. I don't like the idea of the government pushing people into marriage.

Until Romney's dictum came down, we were working on securing opposite-sex domestic partner benefits. Now we have to regress back to fighting for what we already had. It's true what they say about Republicans rolling back the 20th century.

if you think that gay married people and straight married people being treated the same should be considered a roll-back.

The purpose of same-sex partner benefits, including health insurance, was not so that a roommate or someone like that could get health insurance, but that the person who was your life-partner, your soul-mate, the person who was the equivalent of your spouse, could get health insurance.

True domestic partners would not consider civil marriage a "life-changing decision."

Life partners can have valid reasons for not getting married. I don't understand how it's progressive for the state to force people into marriage.

I agree that it's good for straight and gay couples to be treated the same legally. But I don't think it's good for anyone to be denied healthcare.

Thanks for thinking I'm nuts.

If they don't get married, they will lose estate tax and other benefits, but as you say, they might have reasons not to get married.

The state isn't forcing people into marriage. It's giving you the option to get married and to obtain the benefits from being married.

You live in the only state that allows gay marriage. Now you get to make the tough choices just like straight people have to make. I say this is progress.

was that same-sex couples weren't allowed to marry, and so had no avenue through which their partners could be insured--it was an equal protection thing. Straight couples have been dealing with this quandary for decades now. For better or worse (ha!), welcome to marriage-land, and the weird shit that can happen when marriage is suddenly an option (divorce and alimony not least among them). Better to have your problem in MA than what we're dealing with here in WI--a pending amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage AND civil unions, permanently reducing every WI gay-couple's legal status to zero.

Now that we can get married in MA, there is no reason why we should be treated any differently that straight couples. Are there opposite-sex partner benefits for those who are not married?

If the bastards rescind gay marriage in the state, then there is an argument to go back to same-sex partner benefits.

My company added Domestic Partner benefits to insurance and some other benefit plans in 1993. At that time, they took a lot of heat from right wing fundies about it. But they made it orientation-blind, and after the enrollment period for that year ended, it turned out that 89% of the employees seeking DP coverage were in 'opposite gender' relationships.

Today they (Kodak) view it as a two-person insurance; I doubt whether they would change it in the states (MA...and NY, WA soon?) where marriage is allowed.

From my company FAQ on the subject:

What if marriage, civil unions, or other comparable options which legalize same gender relationships become available in the state in which my domestic partner and I reside?

If you reside in a state in which same-gender marriage, civil unions, or other comparable legalized relationships are available, you must execute that option within one year of availability in that state to retain eligibility for your domestic partner.

and it makes sense. If I live with someone, I should marry them if I want on to their healthcare plan. Now, regardless of my sexual orientation, I can marry that person.

This isn't a step down, it's evening the playing field.

I'm surprised at the near total support for what UMass is doing here. I agree: it is a step toward equality that now same-sex domestic partners will have no healthcare, just like opposite-sex domestic partners.

My concern is essentially this: the pro-corporate figureheads that dictate University policy are using a progressive victory to further diminish the pool of people who have health insurance. Yes, in a strict logical sense, what they've done can be construed as a victory for glbt individuals. But when someone who used to have health insurance has to forgo a doctor visit as a result of this policy, I don't think he or she will be dancing in the streets.

The graduate employee union was attempting to get opposite-sex domestic partner coverage worked into the new contract. This would be a step toward a true orientation-blind policy that would increase the number of people with health insurance, rather than diminish it. Instead, we have our goal of orientation equality, but that rings hollow to those with empty pockets.

With equal rights come equal responsibilities.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm pretty busy these days. And i do like to say "shut the fuck up" it's easy, effective, and pretty much the only proper response in the case in point.

YOU COMPARED THE ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY BUSH AND HITLER. Actually, you not only compared them, but elevated Bush to a higher position of evil.

Smartmouth, I like it - it's true, there are a lot of frat boy asshole types here. If you want to read my term papers, I'd be happy to PM them to you. I like to think I do alright academically, but, either way, it doesn't take a genius to see that putting Bush above Hitler in terms of evil warrants criticism and denouncement.

Edit: On further consideration, do you have any connection to Massachusetts whatsoever? Are you upset that I properly complained about your earlier post? Have you been waiting for a VERY minor slip up on my part to play "gotcha" and launch an unwarranted and totally incorrect personal attack? Have you nothing better to do with your time? I know I have better things to do than defend my name from your slander and far-leftist lunacy.

Are they entitled to the health care benefits you seek?