tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31417199.post5961534081536868859..comments2023-12-14T11:26:51.959-05:00Comments on Life After Jerusalem: Opposite-sex partners in the Foreign Service Want Benefits TooDiggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03856750834804127824noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31417199.post-79482722313914978102009-12-29T02:17:44.814-05:002009-12-29T02:17:44.814-05:00Saying that your employer "forces" you t...Saying that your employer "forces" you to get married if you want your opposite-sex partner to have health insurance is like saying your employer "forces" you to take the job if you yourself want health insurance. It's true, in a sense, but why is that relevant?<br /><br />Health insurance is a very costly benefit, and I think it's understandable that the taxpayer would need to limit who can have it. If you're going to grant health insurance to people who can marry but choose not to do so, then by the same logic we could also grant health insurance to people who are offered a job but choose not to take it.<br /><br />You are exactly right when you say that if you expand the program like this the cost will soar. The religious right knows this will kill the program, and that's why they are pushing this so hard. I only wish our straight allies would realize: this is the closest we can get to full equality right now, so please don't take us backwards.<br /><br />My partner and I are still not welcome to live in the United States because only married couples qualify for immigration benefits. Other partners are left with no health insurance at all. We need to move forward before we start throwing away the measly gains we've already made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31417199.post-49416821712393721162009-12-27T22:50:37.851-05:002009-12-27T22:50:37.851-05:00Hmmm...it doesn't say we would get married if ...Hmmm...it doesn't say we would get married if we had the legal right to, though perhaps it should. I do know that GLIFAA, in negotiations to get this passed, said we would support the Department requiring us to be legally married or in a legal domestic partnership in order to get the benefits (since we can declare any state we choose our legal residence). They opted for the affidavit instead. My wife and I did both.<br /><br />I sincerely hope you are right about the lawsuits.Diggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856750834804127824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31417199.post-81384153811961223362009-12-27T22:26:59.027-05:002009-12-27T22:26:59.027-05:00You're absolutely right. The article mentions...You're absolutely right. The article mentions a possible lawsuit, but I can't see how they have a claim. If they're going to sue on equal protection grounds, they won't stand a chance for the reason that you said--they CAN get married if they want. I am curious whether the affidavit you mention requires you to state that you would get married if you had the legal right to. Every domestic partnership application/affidavit I've seen requires a statement to that effect. If that's the case then there is no way these couples could win a lawsuit on Equal Protection grounds because they are not "similarly situated" as same-sex couples given the benefits; they can't claim that they would be entitled to the benefits because they can in fact get married, but they have chosen not to.<br /><br />On the other hand. I think that if this is a tactic by the right to battle same-sex benefits it will backfire. Lawsuits like this only show how complicated it makes it to create special classes of lesser rights for gay people instead of granting full marriage equality.Abbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01265157709852131277noreply@blogger.com