NationStates Jolt Archive

So, since same-sex marriage is not allowed, many companies have begun granting partnership benefits. As my boyfriend was filling out all of the paperwork for his new job, he was listing me as beneficiary on his insurance, etc. The people there found that a bit odd, but offered to check into partnership benefits - to see if he could possibly extend his health insurance (which is much better than anything I can afford right now) to me as well. The verdict? Yes, they offer partnership benefits, but only for homosexual couples - so we don't count!

Reverse discrimination? Should we not get treated the same as a homosexual couple?


Ok, seriously, this doesn't really upset me all that much. Homosexuals definitely get the short end of the stick and, as the company pointed out to my boyfriend, we could get married and get the benefits with no problems. What does upset me is the fact that it is even an issue. If people were treated the same, regardless of sexuality, there wouldn't be a distinction between spousal and partnership benefits - it would be one or the other. If they chose to only offer spousal benefits, they would be offered equally to any marriage, as homosexuals would not be treated inequitably. If they were offered equally to any romantic partnership, we would be able to get them and marriage wouldn't even come into the picture. Discuss. =)

Hehe, but I do know that I'll get interest from the title. =)

Its probably because a heterosexual couple can get married and then get the benefits, but a homosexual couple cant get married and just have to live as a couple, so that company is just treating them as a married couple

er...if that makes sense

*snip*
It's not reverse descrimination, which really, would actually be NO discrimination:). It's discrimination, period.

Its probably because a heterosexual couple can get married and then get the benefits, but a homosexual couple cant get married and just have to live as a couple, so that company is just treating them as a married couple

er...if that makes sense
Yup.

But as one who refused to get married, I don't see why people who have lived together for YEARS, regardless of their gender, should not be treated the same as married couples. Cripes...who cares if you say, "I DO" in front of witnesses? Two kids, and 10 years certainly say "I DO" in my mind. And married or not..."I DON'T" costs the same to legalise...

So, since same-sex marriage is not allowed, many companies have begun granting partnership benefits. As my boyfriend was filling out all of the paperwork for his new job, he was listing me as beneficiary on his insurance, etc. The people there found that a bit odd, but offered to check into partnership benefits - to see if he could possibly extend his health insurance (which is much better than anything I can afford right now) to me as well. The verdict? Yes, they offer partnership benefits, but only for homosexual couples - so we don't count!

Reverse discrimination? Should we not get treated the same as a homosexual couple?


Ok, seriously, this doesn't really upset me all that much. Homosexuals definitely get the short end of the stick and, as the company pointed out to my boyfriend, we could get married and get the benefits with no problems. What does upset me is the fact that it is even an issue. If people were treated the same, regardless of sexuality, there wouldn't be a distinction between spousal and partnership benefits - it would be one or the other. If they chose to only offer spousal benefits, they would be offered equally to any marriage, as homosexuals would not be treated inequitably. If they were offered equally to any romantic partnership, we would be able to get them and marriage wouldn't even come into the picture. Discuss. =)

Hehe, but I do know that I'll get interest from the title. =)

Yeah it sucks … the company had to make a policy to make it as fair as they could for the homosexual couple but if they open it up to all casual bf gf they stand to loose a lot of money
They defiantly went with the lesser of two evils (choosing the wording so homosexuals could at least get dual coverage) rather then just taking the easy way out and not allowing them to share coverage at all

This would all be cleared up if the law recognized their unions as the same legally

Yup.

But as one who refused to get married, I don't see why people who have lived together for YEARS, regardless of their gender, should not be treated the same as married couples. Cripes...who cares if you say, "I DO" in front of witnesses? Two kids, and 10 years certainly say "I DO" in my mind. And married or not..."I DON'T" costs the same to legalise...

In the US, in most states, if you live together as a heterosexual couple for seven years, you're common law married.

It's not reverse descrimination, which really, would actually be NO discrimination:). It's discrimination, period.

But it is discrimination intended to counter the effects of other discrimination ;)

Aside: why wouldn't two people[1] get legally married after being together for years ? It is just a small form; the whole ceremony surrounding it is not necessary.

[1] Though this excludes polygamy.

In the US, in most states, if you live together as a heterosexual couple for seven years, you're common law married.
You're common law in Canada after a year (in some places, six months now). However, that does not mean you have all the rights as a married couple. They are pretty comparable...but not equal. And yet, with children, a common law "divorce" can cost as much as a "real" divorce.

Seven years in the states? Holy crap!

In the US, in most states, if you live together as a heterosexual couple for seven years, you're common law married.

Many states are actually moving away from that. GA used to have a common law marriage law, but did away with it not that long ago. Of course, it wouldn't matter, we've only been actually living together for 2 years.

Aside: why wouldn't two people[1] get legally married after being together for years ? It is just a small form; the whole ceremony surrounding it is not necessary.

Well, for one thing, other than this whole insurance thing - it is currently more economically feasible for us to *not* be married. We have discussed it, however, and will probably be engaged sometime soon. We've already bought a house together, so I don't think either of us are going anywhere.

But it is discrimination intended to counter the effects of other discrimination ;)

So often, reverse discrimination is used to refer to minority groups who have traditionally been discriminated against, who now discriminate against those that discriminated against them. (confused yet? I am!) However, I think that's bunk. A Native who hates whites is not practicing reverse discrimination, just discrimination. Why define discrimination as anything but what it is? Though I like your description in this case!

Aside: why wouldn't two people[1] get legally married after being together for years ? It is just a small form; the whole cermoney surrounding it is not necessary.

[1] Though this excludes polygamy.
Why would they? There are enough expenses in this world, why enter into extraneous ones? I don't need an official document telling me I've made a commitment to a person. Nor do I feel the need to spend the money on the marriage certificate and the ceremony (even if you have a civil ceremony, it costs...yeah, the expense is not huge, but still...)

That and, marriage is a farce. It's no more binding than not being married. So if I don't believe in it, why would I do it? I don't see it as providing any more proof than my time with my husband already proves. *shrugs* It's just a silly thing I resist in a silly way:).

I don't see it as providing any more proof than my time with my husband already proves. *shrugs* It's just a silly thing I resist in a silly way:).

Well.. but how would government officials and such *know* that you spend so much time with him ;) ?
Try viewing it like this: Society seems to think it is beneficial to have people form "units of 2 persons" and therefor offers them rewards. A marriage certificate's function is to tell the government you are part of a unit, not to tell your partner you love him ;)

Well.. but how would government officials and such *know* that you spend so much time with him ;) ?
Try viewing it like this: Society seems to think it is beneficial to have people form "units of 2 persons" and therefor offers them rewards. A marriage certificate's function is to tell the government you are part of a unit, not to tell your partner you love him ;)
Not really. You have to declare yourself common-law on your taxes and pretty much all legal forms. To not do so is considered fraud. So, they already know. And the moment you have a kid together, you are considered common-law unless you declare otherwise. No waiting time needed.

So, since same-sex marriage is not allowed, many companies have begun granting partnership benefits. As my boyfriend was filling out all of the paperwork for his new job, he was listing me as beneficiary on his insurance, etc. The people there found that a bit odd, but offered to check into partnership benefits - to see if he could possibly extend his health insurance (which is much better than anything I can afford right now) to me as well. The verdict? Yes, they offer partnership benefits, but only for homosexual couples - so we don't count!

Reverse discrimination? Should we not get treated the same as a homosexual couple?


Ok, seriously, this doesn't really upset me all that much. Homosexuals definitely get the short end of the stick and, as the company pointed out to my boyfriend, we could get married and get the benefits with no problems. What does upset me is the fact that it is even an issue. If people were treated the same, regardless of sexuality, there wouldn't be a distinction between spousal and partnership benefits - it would be one or the other. If they chose to only offer spousal benefits, they would be offered equally to any marriage, as homosexuals would not be treated inequitably. If they were offered equally to any romantic partnership, we would be able to get them and marriage wouldn't even come into the picture. Discuss. =)

Hehe, but I do know that I'll get interest from the title. =)
Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Establish civil unions for any 2 consenting adults who wish to enter into a mutually benificial relationship, be it 2 siblings, hetero couple, homo couple, 2 friends wanting to share expenses, whatever. Extend partner benifits to the above civil unions. No more discrimination.

So often, reverse discrimination is used to refer to minority groups who have traditionally been discriminated against, who now discriminate against those that discriminated against them. (confused yet? I am!) However, I think that's bunk. A Native who hates whites is not practicing reverse discrimination, just discrimination. Why define discrimination as anything but what it is? Though I like your description in this case!

In truth, I was using it more to grab attention than anything else. I don't think that "reverse discrimination" is a term that makes any sense either. I usually hear it used in reference to measures against discrimination that then discriminate against the majority.

I do certainly think this is discrimination. And if partnership benefits were all that was ever offered - and they were only offered to homosexual couples, you can bet I would be raising hell. As it is, I think that companies (and the government) need to pick one, offer it equally to all, and stick with that.

In truth, I was using it more to grab attention than anything else. I don't think that "reverse discrimination" is a term that makes any sense either. I usually hear it used in reference to measures against discrimination that then discriminate against the majority.

I do certainly think this is discrimination. And if partnership benefits were all that was ever offered - and they were only offered to homosexual couples, you can bet I would be raising hell. As it is, I think that companies (and the government) need to pick one, offer it equally to all, and stick with that.
Hopefully they will allow homosexual marriages and then we can just get on and make it all the same

You can get married, they can't. If you want the benefits, tie the knot and then you'll be set.

You can get married, they can't. If you want the benefits, tie the knot and then you'll be set.
Just to play devil's advocate.... they can get married, just not to someone they are sexually attracted to.

You can get married, they can't. If you want the benefits, tie the knot and then you'll be set.

Certainly, but wouldn't it all be easier and more equitable if we didn't have to go by separate rules?

Certainly, but wouldn't it all be easier and more equitable if we didn't have to go by separate rules?
Yeah, it would be a hell of a lot easier and more equitable if homosexual couples could get married too, but as we have discovered, this is a far from equitable world.

Certainly, but wouldn't it all be easier and more equitable if we didn't have to go by separate rules?
Yeah I just don't see them being able to do it really until those asses stop blocking homosexual marriages ... these “benefits” really belong in the marriage benefits rather then the bf/gf range but with gay marriage being blocked there is no easy way to give it to them at the same point (I really don't like to see it unbalanced like this but I think we got to correct the marriage thing and then move the benefits up to the same place rather then moving all down to relationships ... not sure the company could take that hit in income that could come)

Yeah, it would be a hell of a lot easier and more equitable if homosexual couples could get married too

Exactly!


Yeah I just don't see them being able to do it really until those asses stop blocking homosexual marriages ... these “benefits” really belong in the marriage benefits rather then the bf/gf range but with gay marriage being blocked there is no easy way to give it to them at the same point (I really don't like to see it unbalanced like this but I think we got to correct the marriage thing and then move the benefits up to the same place rather then moving all down to relationships ... not sure the company could take that hit in income that could come)

Well, in truth, we're just as committed as any married couple (gay or otherwise), we just haven't done the legal thing yet.

Of course, as I pointed out, I'm not really arguing that I think I should get the benefits, but that, one way or another, the situations should be treated equitably. I'm sure companies themsleves, barring same-sex marraige being legalized, could place an "X-year minimum" on such benefits akin to a common-law marriage - thus being unlikely to lose any money on the deal.

Of course, the best situation would be the one in which same-sex marriage was legalized and we were truly all in the same boat.

Exactly!



Well, in truth, we're just as committed as any married couple (gay or otherwise), we just haven't done the legal thing yet.

Of course, as I pointed out, I'm not really arguing that I think I should get the benefits, but that, one way or another, the situations should be treated equitably. I'm sure companies themsleves, barring same-sex marraige being legalized, could place an "X-year minimum" on such benefits akin to a common-law marriage - thus being unlikely to lose any money on the deal.

Of course, the best situation would be the one in which same-sex marriage was legalized and we were truly all in the same boat.


Exactly ... I just think it sucks that in trying to make things better for homosexuals this company really has unbalanced things ... they obviously are TRYING to make things right when the government wont

Exactly ... I just think it sucks that in trying to make things better for homosexuals this company really has unbalanced things ... they obviously are TRYING to make things right when the government wont

Yes, and this is the reason I really don't blame them at all. I am very glad that they offer partnership benefits for those who are already discriminated against. I might be able to delineate a more equitable way of doing it, but they certainly have the right general idea. And, as so many have pointed out, if it becomes an absolute necessity or even simply of huge importance to us, we can get married and get the benefits.

Yes, and this is the reason I really don't blame them at all. I am very glad that they offer partnership benefits for those who are already discriminated against. I might be able to delineate a more equitable way of doing it, but they certainly have the right general idea. And, as so many have pointed out, if it becomes an absolute necessity or even simply of huge importance to us, we can get married and get the benefits.
Yeah hopefully the marriage thing gets figured out soon and this will become a non issue :)