GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmakers unveil bipartisan domestic partner benefits bills

• 84055
  

  "Marriage is and has been since the beginning of recorded history between a man and a woman PERIOD." ------ Not really. In many parts of the world, it was between a man and as many women as he could afford to support. More wives means more status. Oh, and forget having marriages between people of different racial heritage. Totally illegal and immoral *historically* in much of the world, especially in this country. And I've worked for the government long enough to know first hand that the "that's the way we always do it" explanation is rarely satisfactory.

  "If people want to live together (roommates) and do strange and unnatural things behind closed doors, then we certainly can't stop them in our free society." ----- And if married people want to do "strange and unnatural things"? Who is to say what anyone does behind closed doors, and how is it anyone's business?

  Sometimes I wish I could see the world in black and white and assume that what *I* do in my daily life is what's "right" and everything else is "wrong". It would make things so much easier.

  s.b.n.n. Posted August 3, 2009 9:32 AM
• 82077
  

  The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) website states that a federal employee may not "discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation." And yet, married federal employees still receive a superior benefits package for doing the same work as other employees. I believe that all employees should receive equal pay and benefits for equal work. In an effort to eliminate this discrimination, some enlightened employers have developed benefit packages that provide an equal credit amount for each employee. The employee may then select the benefits that best meet his/her needs from a menu of options.

  tmcr Posted July 8, 2009 2:34 PM
• 82041
  

  I am sick and tired of our legislators spending time on assinine stuff like this. Marriage is and has been since the beginning of recorded history between a man and a woman PERIOD. If people want to live together (roommates) and do strange and unnatural things behind closed doors, then we certainly can't stop them in our free society. However, each roommate is free to get a job and obtain their own benefits in our free society. Legislators: Stop giving away more of our tax money. It seems to me that right now the biggest problem is your inability to live within your means as representatives of the people. We now have an annual deficit of more than one trillion dollars. You need to make some hard choices, use tough love, ignore your lobbyists, and finally do the right thing. As a representative, you must pass legislation that is affordable to the nation. You must repeal old stupid laws that were created for various special interest groups, and devise a government that provides a basic safety net for all, but challenges everyone to earn an honest living and not ask for handouts. Why don't you senators and representatives surprise me?

  DOD Employee Posted July 8, 2009 9:38 AM
• 82036
  

  To the guy that posted "Tired of this debate" - Marry your girl friend - at least you have the right to do it. I think my son could figure out how to keep the civilization going since the invention of In Vitro Fertilization. Oh, by the way - my son is a genius. Why do you care so much about this subject anyway?

  Gov Mom Posted July 8, 2009 9:09 AM
• 81900
  

  I would be ok with this bill and OPM's approach if they dropped the gay, lesbian, and same-sex verbiage limiting it to special groups rather than all individuals. We are a nation that guarantees individual rights, not groups or couples. Like many people, I'd like to provide health insurance to my "life-partner", who happens to be of the opposite sex. This bill is short-sighted and terribly divisive, which by its desgin creates a great deal of angst and anger because of its exclusive nature.

  Joe Posted July 6, 2009 11:01 AM
• 81137
  

  Your son and his partner need to be in a legal union (a lawful contract) before such bennefits are awarded. That's just the way I see it. I have worked for the government since I was 19 years old and I've never been able to get bennefits for my girlfriend. I know your side of the debate will be something like; He Can't get married because it's not legal so he should be just given bennefits until it is legal. Am I right? Of course I am. There are many reasons why taxpayers have consistantly voted AGAINST gay marriage. One of those reasons is the strong belief that it's a choice and that it's not natual. For you parents out there that actually believe your children were "born" that way...congratulations, you are just another parent that's been swindled by your child. Don't fret! for you are not the first nor will you be the last. I say we allow all the people that feel they were born that way on their own island...an nice island mind you. One with perfect weather year round and lots of room for all the gay men. Now, they can't take any females. That shouldn't be a problem because they were born liking men. Then we leave them alone and let them run their little civilization for 200 years and then we go back and see how WELL their "natural" society worked for them. I will wager there will be no one left. Wow, this proposition has an interesting paradox doesn't it. If you think it's natural to be born that way then you need to answer why the Gay civilization didn't last. Maybe your son is a genius and he can figure it out.

  tired of this debate Posted June 24, 2009 12:23 PM
• 81054
  

  My husband and I work for the government and my son is gay. He did not choose to be gay - never new anyone gay when he first struggled with it at the age of 12 and when he came out to us at 16, I was worried because of the gay haters in this world. He is in his twenties and working for the government and is in a commited relationship with his same sex partner. He deserves these benefits until he can get legally married and get Life, Liberty and Persuit of happiness for all.

  Gov Mom Posted June 23, 2009 3:35 PM
• 80826
  

  My last two post were actually for DANA...not Alyssa. Sorry for the confusion

  shawn Posted June 19, 2009 2:11 PM
• 80712
  

  Alyssa, I want to first thank you for not making any personal attacks against me for my viewpoint. For that alone you have my respect. You're right when you say I didn't read the bill. I happened upon this site and read the post and responded about what I read here. I shouldn't have taken the information at face value. However, I still don't believe all my points were invalid. I still think heterosexuals should be able to to keep their definition of marriage. It's only a word but there is a lot of history behind that word and it's near and hear to the hearts many. In my view a "Union" should have all the bennefits that come with a marriage and should be just as hard to get out of. If Homosexuals can't be happy with that then I fear they have a very very long battle ahead of them. There's a saying I heard long ago that fits in this situation. "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you will never please all the people all of the time". Now this, to me, doesn't mean we shouldn't AIM to please everyone but it's a "common sense" quote that reminds me a utopia is not practical. You said this segregation of terminology (I'm paraphrasing) was a way to lessen homosexuals. I don't see it that way. I believe it is a rational compromise between two very different ideas. Now when it comes to the statements you made about the military you were only part right. I in NO way recieve extra money for being married. I get nothing for it! I have been in the Military for 13 years and I never recieved extra money for being married. My spouse does get a couple bennefits though. My spouse is put on my health insurance. I have to pay for her dental out of pocket. I "reserve" the right to live off the installation I'm assigned to but I choose to live on Post because it's cheaper. If anyone claims otherwise they do not understand their military finace. I don't even have to be married to live off post, I just have to have a kid. I can be single, with a kid, and live off post and recieve the same housing allowance as someone that's married. By choosing to live on post I don't even see the housing allowance I'm given. It's taken out of my paycheck and given right to Post Housing. LOL, they give it to you and take it back at the same time! But none of this is because I'm married, it's because I'm not allowed to keep my family in the barracks.

  shawn Posted June 18, 2009 3:32 PM
• 80563
  

  This is to Shawn and to his post below mine. The Domestic Partnership bill is inclusive of heterosexual couples. You went on and on about special rights without even reading the bill or even the summary of the bill. Domestic Partnerships are closed to heterosexual couples in a few states; in those states, the institution is same-sex only as a way to segregate gays and lesbians not to give them special rights. You, yourself, said marriage is ONLY heterosexual then go off on how DPs for homosexuals only is special rights. Gays and Lesbians fight for civil marriage because they don't want special rights.They don't want to be treated differently. In the recent california supreme court decision upholding Prop 8, one justice gave some advice to the legilature; "open up DP registry to all Californians". Why? Because by keeping the institution segregated, it becomes a way to 'lessen' or denegrate the relationships of same-sex couples. African-American's who were forced to sit in the back of the bus arrived exactly when the whites in the front of the bus did. Having to sit in the back, by its very nature, made them inferior. Those who fight so hard to keep marriage a 'special right' of heterosexuals may not hate gays and lesbians but they for sure don't think they're relationships are equal. As for your last point about military benefits. I personally know 5 of my military buddies who claim fake spouses to get special benefits. I also have 2 gay service member friends who have married a female to help keep their secrets safe. If anything, DADT, and Domestic Partnerships only denigrates the institution people like you claim to be protecting. Heterosexuals have a special privilege in excluding same-sex couples, Religious institutions have special protections in federal hate crimes protections. You have special privileges in being able to claim a spouse and receive a great deal of extra money for it. Maybe we, as taxpayers, should start voting on your rights and special privileges. Hope you're not an unpopular minority.

  Dana Posted June 17, 2009 10:07 PM
• 80491
  

  I have read all comments posted to date. I beleive that marriage IS for between a man and a woman, however, I beleive a "UNION" should be between sax-sex couples and come with all the legal rights as a marriage and that a "UNION" should be legal in all states. The Union I speak of should have all the legal bindings (good and bad)that come with a marriage. Just a change in the word used to describe a same sex contract for homosexuals from "marriage" to "union" would persuade a lot of moderate conservitives to support equal rights for homosexuals. I have some concens about this bill. I think it is unfair to heterosexual domestic partners to be excluded from the bill AND I find it intriguing that I did not read a comment from a homosexual demanding equal rights having that same argument. Equal rights should be across the board, so to me, this looks like special rights. Just calling it like I see it. I have noticed many people using the "I'm a taxpayer" to support their side of the debate. I tuely don't care which way it goes but I understand our system is set up in a way that ALL taxpaying citizens of legal age have the right to vote on how their money is spent. Now the only way for this ideal to be fair to all taxpayers is for the votes to be counted and a decision reached in favor of the majority. That's my take on the "I'm a taxpayer" debate. I want to touch on one more thing. I think this bill opens up our government to massive amounts of fraud. I say this knowing where ever the "human element" is involved dishonesty is a possibility. As is, I would not support this "special rights bill". However, with many changes in way of fairness (equality) and fraud protection I would support this bill. Fairness is self-explanitory but fraud may not be. I'm in the Military and for anyone to share my bennefits I MUST prove I am married to that person or that person is a qualifying relitive. That way, the "taxpayer" isn't flipping the bill for someone who would rather have tv, internet, and a nice car instead of health insurance and I completely agree with this way of doing business. However, with this Bill it seems it will require very little proof of commitment to a domestic partner and poof, your partner is covered.

  shawn Posted June 17, 2009 12:11 PM
• 79492
  

  If you look @ this issue rationally & objectively, then you should be able to see that the point I'm trying to make is that when a man and a woman marry, they enter into a legal contract that is binding and recognized @ the federal level. Sure, that contract can be dissolved, but it takes more than just one party walking away and saying I'm done. They still have to file for dissolution of the contract in a court of law and that court of law will pronounce the contract severed. None of this holds true for someone in a same sex relationship @ the federal level. The federal gov't does not recognize same sex marital unions as legal. I truly believe that without a marriage/legal contract it would be irresponsible of the gov't (who have a fiduciary resposibility to the taxpayers) to give marital benefits to people who claim to be partners. That's not equal rights (like some people would like to believe) that's asking for Special rights. If you just allow someone to submit an affidavit Promising that they are life partners, then why not let Joe & Sarah say they are life partners and attain each others benefits also without a marriage. If we allow our gov't to start down this road, we will inviting the destruction of the institution of marriage alltogether.

  Angry Gov't Employee Posted June 8, 2009 9:50 AM
• 79411
  

  So, because SOME people might not be honest, ALL people of a group should be denied the right to share in their partner's insurance?

  How about we deny the right of insurance to married HETEROsexuals who have been divorced before, because they've already demonstrated that they don't view such a union as permanent and will jump from one person's insurance to another? I think that's fair, don't you?

  By the way, at the time my husband and I got married, the reason why we went to the courthouse to get that marriage certificate was because I wanted to get on his medical insurance. We are a real couple who would have gotten married eventually, but the #1 reason why we walked in there THAT DAY was because I could no longer afford my own premiums. Anyone want to strip me of my rights as am honest taxpaying adult citizen? Want to accuse me of defrauding the government? I dare you.

  straight but not narrow Posted June 5, 2009 1:14 PM
• 79233
  

  In response to Happy Gov't Employee: Your language from OPM sounds all well and good, but the reality is an affidavit is not a Marriage. I can sign an affidavit today saying someone is my domestic partner and that we fall under all the guidelines you posted from OPM, but six months later or even a year later I can do the same thing and have a new domestic partner. Marriage is a more finite institution and people aren't as likely to change spouses every year or any time the wind blows as they are with "partners". It takes much more effort and legal steps to dissolve a marriage than it would a domestic partnership. Now, if same sex marriage was legal at the "FEDERAL" level, than I would have nothing to say, but until then I don't believe you should grant "SPECIAL RIGHTS & BENEFITS" to same sex couples. I say SPECIAL RIGHTS & BENEFITS b/c they already have the same rights as everyone else. If they choose to get married they can attain benefits for their spouse just like anyone else, they just CHOOSE to live a lifestyle where marrying the person they may want to is not legal. I think that should be the issue they would have to tackle 1st (and don't get me wrong...I'm against that also, but that's another argument).

  Angry Gov't Employee Posted June 4, 2009 9:23 AM
• 79173
  

  This is in response to Angry Gov't Employee. Here is the text of the bill you are referring to: (b) Certification of Eligibility- In order to obtain benefits and assume obligations under this Act, an employee shall file an affidavit of eligibility for benefits and obligations with the Office of Personnel Management identifying the domestic partner of the employee and certifying that the employee and the domestic partner of the employee--

  (1) are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely;

  (2) have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement;

  (3) are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract;

  (4) share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations;

  (5) are not married to or domestic partners with anyone else;

  (6) are same sex domestic partners, and not related in a way that, if the two were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside; and

  (7) understand that willful falsification of information within the affidavit may lead to disciplinary action and the recovery of the cost of benefits received related to such falsification and may constitute a criminal violation.

  While there will always be fraud, I have also known several marriages that were merely to facilitate these benefits as well.

  Happy Gov't Employee Posted June 3, 2009 2:22 PM
• 79056
  

  Thank you Joe for stating that marriage IS a legal contract. That's absolutely what it is.

  It's a contract between two adults who wish to be financially and legally bound to each other for life, or until both parties take legal steps towards dissolution of that contract. Which is why the state and federal govts shouldn't care what sort of genitalia those adults have or whether or not they use them in congress with each other. It's not the state's business who does what within a marriage, as long as they are legally able to sign a contract and file it with the proper authorities.

  Until the states realize that "marriage" is something that should be available to all adults who wish to have it, no matter what some people's opinions about what constitutes a "couple" are, I applaud organizations such as the feds for at least TRYING to make things right by their employees.

  straight but not narrow Posted June 2, 2009 1:32 PM
• 79041
  

  I believe this is a positive turn in equal rights! Anyone that thinks differently is definately a person with hate and bigotry in their hearts. ALL people should be treated equally! There are thousands of gay, lesbian, or bi-gender couples who have been legally married so dont go there. People are born they way they are weather hateful people believe it or not. We all deserve to be free and have the same rights we pay for in our taxes no matter what your sexual preferences are.

  DixonFaith Posted June 2, 2009 11:49 AM
• 78717
  

  Well, then no one should get benefits if all can not get them. All or none.

  As far as fraud, that can happen for straight or gay. There is abuse in all social programs.

  The federal government should be leading the rest of the country for all men being created equal. Not all men except gays and domestic partners.

  Disbelief Posted May 28, 2009 2:20 PM
• 78667
  

  To Disbelief ... Homosexuality IS a choice. There is no proof that a person is born that way. Just ask those who are former homosexuals, who have chosen to be heterosexual.

  Marriage is a legal contract, not merely a religious one. Do you know of anyone who got married without a minister or outside of a church? Of course, many people have. As for fraud, the fraud is prevented (to a large degree) by presenting a marriage certificate to prove the authenticity of the marriage. Without this, the entire country is eligible for the benefits based upon any employee's "vouching" for them. The FEHB is a benefit for federal employees and their families. "Friends" do not qualify as family. You become "family" by being born into it or marrying into it.

  This is not about equal rights, it is about special rights. It is also merely one step, although a big one, in the pursuit of many special privileges by gay "rights" groups.

  Joe Posted May 28, 2009 10:19 AM
• 78565
  

  I am in total disbelief that a bill such as this is even being considered. 1st of all, if you start allowing same sex partners to receive benefits and same sex marriages aren't even legal on the federal level, then you are opening the federal gov't up to fraud. Who's to say that two people are really domestic partners and not just buddies and one needs health coverage. Also without the boundaries of marriage, how often will they be able to change their domestic partner? They could possibly claim a new one every other month. Its ridiculous...also some of the other people's comments I read made a lot of sense. If you allow two people who aren't legally married benefits b/c they are same sex/domestic partners, then the next step is to allow heterosexual couples that aren't married receive benefits. It just starts a whole chain of events and I can't believe the gov't would go down that road. If private companies want to grant these benefits, then so-be-it...it only uses more of their profit to fund the benefits, but the fed gov't operates on tax dollars and I just think that this type of legislation is too great of a risk for fraud.

  Angry Gov't Employee Posted May 27, 2009 5:16 PM
• 78554
  

  The whole problem is that religious institutions have been granted a say in a purely secular matter--insurance, inheritance, etc. If a church wants to decide not to offer the sacraments of marriage, that's up to them. They should have no say, however, in who can be designated a beneficiary, heir, etc. And for those of you who "don't want my tax dollars going to . . ." I can come up with a long list of things I don't want my tax dollars going to. Dick Cheney's pension, for instance.

  Allen Posted May 27, 2009 3:34 PM
• 78549
  

  "If lawmakers CARED about homosexuals, they'd enact legislation helping them seek and obtain medical and psychological care."

  Unbelievable. It's this kind of thinking that keeps America from progressing and acting like the grown-ups that we're supposed to be.

  Dismayed Posted May 27, 2009 2:55 PM
• 78526
  

  I don't recall the state of Texas asking my husband and I to "prove" that we were a couple. As long as the federal and state governments don't worry about the details of my marriage or question the motives of any hetero pair of straight people who file for marriage licenses, they have no reason to worry about same-sex couples.

  straight but not narrow Posted May 27, 2009 12:52 PM
• 78518
  

  This is a logical step for the federal government to take. Not only will it encourage stability in the current workforce and discourage turnover, it will also greatly enhance recruitment of qualified individuals. It doesn't have anything to do with my personal feelings about gay people, offering domestic partnership benefits is a way of treating everyone the same. Not special, not unique, just the same as other committed couples.

  Marilyn Posted May 27, 2009 11:37 AM
• 78516
  

  I'm sorry too--please don't hate me--but I don't want my taxpayers money to go to help all those heterosexuals that get married in a church.

  See how silly all you homophobes sound?

  Linda Amendt Posted May 27, 2009 11:25 AM
• 78510
  

  I thought I would never take a side in this issue. But peoples ignorance force me to. Homosexuality is not a choice. Who is the heck would want to choose that lifestyle and be rediculed their whole life because they are different. What gives any majority to tell a minority they can not live a certain way. Wait, we tried that with the Blacks in America and rights for women. What makes it right for married couple to receive benefits while unmarried people in a commited relationship, straight or gay can not. Well if all can not benefit, then none should.

  You know, the straight world can not get marriage right with such a high divorce rate. My gay friends can not screw up an institution that is already failing. In fact, most things the gay community touchs, such as a blighted area often is transformed is a great place to live and then the straight community wants to run in and get a piece of the pie.

  When we look into an eye of a young son or daughter who is looking for guidance and tells you that they are gay, are you going to disown that child and tell them they can not have the same life benefits that you have? They are not equal? They are second class and damned to hell? To your own flesh and blood?

  Disbelief Posted May 27, 2009 11:11 AM
• 78508
  

  I forgot to mention . . . ORF and a few others are concerned about their tax dollars. First, gay folks pay taxes too don't they? Second, when a person has no health insurance who pays when illness or accident hits? Oh yeah, the taxpayer !! See where I'm going ORF?

  Fed Up Posted May 27, 2009 10:54 AM
• 78506
  

  "This bill discriminates against heterosexual domestic partners who choose not to marry."

  Hey Darlene . . . the point is as obvious as the one on your head. Your first line should be a clue. Drum roll please . . . the operative word is . . . CHOOSE. Eureka Darlene, do you get it yet?

  Fed Up Posted May 27, 2009 10:45 AM
• 78487
  

  God is a loving Father that teaches us to love all people. He also teaches, as our parents taught us, with love, what He expects of His children. God's definition of marriage is "a union between a man and a woman". As a beliver of God and His teachings I cannot/will not accept any other definition of 'marriage'. The world has acknowledged 'domestic partnerships'. If the law chooses to allow benefits to marriage partnerships as well as domestic partnerships, so be it. But, the law should define 'domestic partnership'. Is it strictly a relationship between two members of the same sex or should it also include members of the opposite sex? Should these partnerships have a legal contract of some sort? There is no hate here, only a deep sadness for the direction the world is choosing.

  Just a Child Posted May 27, 2009 9:37 AM
• 78458
  

  First of all, I don't hate anyone so please don't put me in that convenient category because I do not believe in same sex marriage or providing benefits to "domestic partners. The gay community is very good at their propaganda and making us non-gay folks look like some kind of monsters because we disagree with them and their chosen lifestyles. Sorry folks, I am not a monster and I don't care if you are gay but I do not believe that I or my tax money should be required to condone what my upbringing and personal morals say is wrong. I am also not a "bible thumper" so please don't throw the separation of religion and state at me. I don't care what you do or who you do it with but to recognize two persons from the same sex as being "married" is absurd and I do not want my taxes to provide you one penny to support your chosen lifestyle. This is not a matter of equal rights, it is a demand for special rights. Party on but not with my tax dollars...........

  ORF Posted May 27, 2009 2:03 AM
• 78445
  

  I would like to see this expanded to include those who do not wish to marry but currently live with their heterosexual partners.

  Aretia Dian Moir Posted May 26, 2009 5:19 PM
• 78439
  

  Very amazing this kind of discrimination exists - It's HORRIBLE there are no laws in place to benefit NON-homosexual couples like this. Chalk one more up for Homosexuals seeking and getting special rights not afforded to the rest of the population. :(

  If lawmakers CARED about homosexuals, they'd enact legislation helping them seek and obtain medical and psychological care.

  Darin Posted May 26, 2009 3:54 PM
• 78416
  

  Amazing. We are in 2009 and there still is hate, finger pointing and of course religion that is dividing instead of uniting.

  People in a commited realationship should have the same rights as a married couple. This would include my brother who has been with the same person for 20 years. This person happens to be a very nice woman. I have very close friends that have been together for 13 years. He is my best friend. He has a great male partner. If two people care and love each other, isn't that is important.

  Religion and so called moralists are the first to cast stones in a glass house. The religous folks say it is about faith and belief. They say god loves everone. I wish the churches clean up their own act from the Catholics and the priests molestation, the Bible belt preachers who condemn homosexuality and then pay for it. Religion should be about loving and caring for our fellow man. We as lowly humans should not be passing judgement as there should only be god him or herself that should be judging. That loving God will judge us as a whole person.

  For those that say benefits will be abused, well that is the case for straights or gays.

  We should stop judging and start accepting. We should stop hating and start loving.

  Disbelief Posted May 26, 2009 11:51 AM
• 78373
  

  I know SEVERAL heterosexual couples who stay married just to retain healthcare benefits for potential ex's. What about this argument? It is inherent for some people to cheat and unfortunately, cheating is an equal opportunity behavior. Also, it's obvious that some on this blog are CLUELESS about commitment of gay relationships. A little education - most have legal documents for POA, healthcare POA, living wills, wills and will have property/assets JTRTS, so it's clear who's committed. It's time for justice and equality to prevail - it's going to happen whether you like it or not. Get over it.

  Nan Posted May 25, 2009 9:07 AM
• 78321
  

  "Nemesis" and "Mike": as an avid church-goer myself, I am ashamed at your attack on "Peon". Rather than attack him and call him evil, why not try to do what our Lord Jesus Christ would do? Why not try to reach out to him and show him the error of his ways?

  Although I don't believe that homosexuals should be allowed any benefits that only married hererosexuals should get, I'm not going to attack someone who believes differently. Rather, I'd try to convince them of my point.

  Honestly, those that create strife in the name of God really aren't DOING the will of God.

  Just an Observation Posted May 22, 2009 2:42 PM
• 78320
  

  This bill discriminates against heterosexual domestic partners who choose not to marry. I have been with my male partner for 14 years. I am 52 years old and have no desire to marry. Why should we be penalized because we are not of the same sex? Pass a bill that allows a federal employee to cover her/his domestic partner regardless of sexual orientation.

  Hetero Domestic Partner

  Darlene Hainer Posted May 22, 2009 2:37 PM
• 78316
  

  OK, let's say my father or brother is without health benefits. Can we register as "domestic partners" and extend FEHB to him? There are laws against close relatives marrying, but there are no fears of "idiot children" when both sides are the same sex.

  On the otherhand, perhaps the next frontier in breaking down barriers to all people's happiness is eliminating such restrictions (discriminations) when a brother and sister (substitute any other heterosexual close blood relationship) truly love each other, are committed for life and wish to "normalize" that relationship.

  Ed C Posted May 22, 2009 1:50 PM
• 78315
  

  Peed on, hey some of us believe in God and don't think it is any of our business what other people do. My church has committed Gay couples who are longer term than many married straight people I know. Please do not confuse the love of God with Hate. Only a evil heart can do that.

  Mike Posted May 22, 2009 1:49 PM
• 78313
  

  Look there is no such thing as a bipartner, bipartisan or not. You are either married or not. It is not a question of fairness. If you commit abominable acts in your home you may not be arrested because that is the current law of the land. Just because our Supreme Court copped out and chose not to decide between what is intrinsically good and what is in itself bad does not mean that these actions are acceptable. Because the court chose to apply the standard of what behavior was simply prohibited by law, because they ventured that the delinquent mores of the masses were being inequitably enforced, does not even come close an endorsement of what is right. If right was the standard why then was there such a hoot over the definition of the word "IS" when a former JFK wanna be claimed he did not have sex with that woman. Let's not forget other politically charged blunders our courts have settled with a wink and a nod. How much voting power should a slave owner be able to have given the number of slaves he owns? Should freedom be rightfully granted to the colored man rather then was it his unalienable right? Should a woman be able to vote or own property. Lots of people claim they really love their pets. Some claim they love minors. Should they be able to take a tax deduction for the health care costs of their Pekinese?

  WEB Posted May 22, 2009 1:28 PM
• 78298
  

  Even in states where "common law" marriage is not recognized (which I believe is most of them now), there is always the option for heterosexuals to legally marry. Just because you choose not to does not entitle you to anything. Same sex couples often cannot get married or have any kind of legal recognition for their relationships. In states where gay marriage is legal, they should also be required to be married to get these benefits. Where it is legally impossible for same sex couples to marry, marriage should not be required.

  TBS Posted May 22, 2009 11:53 AM
• 78294
  

  I'd like to see benefits extended first to children up to age 25.

  nathan wolfson Posted May 22, 2009 11:36 AM
• 78292
  

  I think this is an interesting proposal, not for any sort of belief system other than the belief that the Constitution and the U.S. Government exist as a living, growing, evolving entity. Our country is young but obviously capable of learning.

  Wendell Bullard Posted May 22, 2009 11:34 AM
• 78283
  

  Hooray! I had a very happy Fed come to me the other day because our state had signed the "everything but marriage" law - allowing benefits to be extended to same-sex couples. When it finally registered that because he works for the Feds, these rights still didn't extend to him, he was heartsick. It was like one step forward and two steps back. It's good to see someone is trying to reclaim those forward steps!

  AboutTime Posted May 22, 2009 11:12 AM
• 78281
  

  Lawmakers unveil bipartisan domestic partner benefits bills

  Just read about the above mentioned bill. Hmmmmm makes me wonder how everyone would know that the people claiming are homosexual are actually as claimed? Will they have to federally register as homosexual and what about the folks that are bisexual or transexual? Perhaps the bill will be costing taxepayers more money than anticipated? you think? Now, if you were thinking that homosexuals would have to be legally married first to claim federal benefits...if so, is this written into the bill and will this change the law that a legally married person would have to be man and woman? Regardless I am against the bill, will encourage to much cheating and there is enough of this going on...

  ladi Posted May 22, 2009 10:59 AM
• 78277
  

  It appears the "hate-filled" rants started with the first post and starting on the usual side of the conversation.

  OverPaid Peon's Nemesis Posted May 22, 2009 10:46 AM
• 78263
  

  How would this affect long term relationships between hetero couples in states that do not recognize "common law" marriages. You're inviting a lawsuit.

  Robert Chick Posted May 22, 2009 8:58 AM
• 78250
  

  I believe this proposal is a bit premature. Shouldn't the federal government legally recognize marriage between same sex partners before allowing spousal coverage? After all, heterosexuals have to be legally married to carry their "different sex partners" on their insurance. Why should it be different for same sex couples?

  Married Fed Posted May 22, 2009 7:40 AM
• 78248
  

  I see some interesting side issues.

  1. Will benefits be extended to heterosexual couples who choose to live together without marriage? I would not give these couples the benefits. They have a choice to make a legal commitment to each other, but choose not to make that commitment. They should not receive the benefit without the commitment.

  2. Will benefits be extended to homosexual couples living in states where homosexual marriage is legal? I have the same answer as for heterosexual couples. If there is the legal opportunity to marry, and the couple does not avail itself of that opportunity, the couple should not get the benefits.

  wallyp Posted May 22, 2009 7:21 AM
• 78247
  

  As a 25 year Federal employee (my partner of 20 years has also served the Federal Government for 28 years) and mother, I am thrilled to know there is finally an effort to pay me fairly and treat me equally to my colleagues and friends. I pay for family medical coverage for myself and our son (who has two legal parents-my partner and me), while my partner pays for single coverage. We have been married in Canada and decided to wait and marry in the US when we will receive recognition and full Federal benefits and responsibilities that legal marriage affords and imposes. This is a nice step forward toward providing me the full citizenship the Constitution promises me.

  Sheri Disler Posted May 22, 2009 7:19 AM
• 78242
  

  To be fair and equitable, this law MUST require that gay couples be married when they live in states that recognize marriage or in civil unions in states that do--otherwise it discrimates against heterosexuals. Also the "lookback and pay back" provision of federal pensions must be changed which requires that when, after retirement "married" or allowed domestic partner benefits the retiree must repay 10% of their montly pension all the way back to the original retirment date at 6% interest compounded annually! So, if "married" at a 50,000 a year pension five years after marriage, the retiree must repaid $25,000 at this ursurous rate in order to leave the partner a survivor pension!!!!!

  George Sincavage, AFGE AVP Posted May 22, 2009 6:42 AM
• 78241
  

  Strongly support this incentive.

  Edward New Posted May 22, 2009 6:29 AM
• 78230
  

  In favor of extending this benefit to domestic partners who are registered since we cannot get married.

  Michael Barry Posted May 21, 2009 7:33 PM
• 78227
  

  Again I must ask: Why should "domestic partner" be defined as either gay or lesbian? As an american MAN, I am outraged that people who are either gay or lesbian can be given such consideration, but because I have a domestic relationship with a WOMAN, we cannot be included in this legislation. We choose not to marry, as we have both seen great relationships self destruct after "legalising" a non conventional normal relationship. Why should we be penalised for being straight, but not married??? What about equality for all? We both adhere to the highest standards of a "married" relationship, with ALL the responsibilities, but none of the benefits. As a North West Native, my other half cannot even get a passport without proving her mothers citizenship, even though she has been a taxpayer all her adult life. Why not adress some of the more important issues, such as equality for ALL, rather than some misguided attempt to further fragment our already damaged society? It's time to put these petty things behind us and move on to a real, and honest, solution to some of the more pressing problems that we face as American citizens. (such as an exceedingly greedy coroprate structure in America!!!!) WAKE UP, people.

  Jess A. Veter Posted May 21, 2009 6:02 PM
• 78221
  

  I'd like my domestic partner to also have benefits. He is a small Jack Russell. Seems strange, well, once you open a door, what do you think people will ask for next. A guy and a guy don't make a couple,,,Duh...

  NoBodySpecial Posted May 21, 2009 4:26 PM
• 78218
  

  I can't believe no one from the religious right has jumped in here with some hate-filled rants yet!

  Or maybe I'm just too early...

  OverPaid Peon Posted May 21, 2009 4:13 PM