Get married or get dropped, some companies advise

  • metta

    Posts: 39082

    Jul 19, 2015 2:41 AM GMT
    Get married or get dropped, some companies advise


    http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/07/10/get-married-or-get-dropped-some-companies-advise/
  • NursePractiti...

    Posts: 232

    Jul 19, 2015 8:28 AM GMT
    Companies like Tech Data here in Florida that have been giving us domestic partner benefits told employees this years ago that if the law changes, those benefits go away. It's either time to poop, or get off the pot if your able to find someone to marry you now that it's nation wide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2015 10:51 AM GMT
    nursemuscle saidCompanies like Tech Data here in Florida that have been giving us domestic partner benefits told employees this years ago that if the law changes, those benefits go away. It's either time to poop, or get off the pot if your able to find someone to marry you now that it's nation wide.


    Especially if you're into scat.
  • mystery905

    Posts: 745

    Jul 19, 2015 11:11 AM GMT
    What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2015 1:41 PM GMT
    mystery905 saidWhat's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    I often use the straight equivalency for these issues. What would happen with a straight couple?

    Could a straight employee ask HR to include his/her partner in various spousal benefits, without some official document establishing their marital status? In the past many companies have been generous in allowing LGBT couples to skirt this requirement. But now that same-sex marriage is legal, it really does "level the playing field".

    The cost, and benefit, of same-sex marriage is being treated like everyone else. Wasn't that what the equality fight was about? I have no trouble with this.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jul 19, 2015 5:21 PM GMT
    As long as same sex marriage is available and as long as same-sex and opposite-sex couples are treated the same, I don't see it as a problem.
  • metta

    Posts: 39082

    Jul 19, 2015 5:29 PM GMT
    ^
    It is something that couples should be aware of and should consider preparing for it to happen.
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Jul 19, 2015 8:58 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    mystery905 saidWhat's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    I often use the straight equivalency for these issues. What would happen with a straight couple?

    Could a straight employee ask HR to include his/her partner in various spousal benefits, without some official document establishing their marital status? In the past many companies have been generous in allowing LGBT couples to skirt this requirement. But now that same-sex marriage is legal, it really does "level the playing field".

    The cost, and benefit, of same-sex marriage is being treated like everyone else. Wasn't that what the equality fight was about? I have no trouble with this.


    I agree; I have no problem with this. We simply want to be treated the same as everyone else.
  • charlitos666

    Posts: 290

    Jul 20, 2015 3:06 AM GMT
    Im confused, in Canada employers never ask for any sort of proof of marriage in order to extend their benefits to your partner. This is the case for both, straight and gay couples. They simply ask for name and last name of whoever you claim to be ur partner and voilá, he/she gets benefits too. Am I missing something?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2015 3:24 AM GMT
    charlitos666 said
    Im confused, in Canada employers never ask for any sort of proof of marriage in order to extend their benefits to your partner. This is the case for both, straight and gay couples. They simply ask for name and last name of whoever you claim to be ur partner and voilá, he/she gets benefits too. Am I missing something?

    What you're missing is a long tradition in the US of benefits, and inheritance, and other spousal rights, depending upon a legal marriage document. Now whether that could ever be changed to the less structured system you're describing for Canada is not predictable, but I would say unlikely in the near term.

    It's the US system we've got. And since LGBT are transitioning into that existing, formerly all-straight system, we can expect to see the same rules being applied to us. The LAST thing we want to be asking for is "special treatment", which infuriates the US Right even more.
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jul 20, 2015 3:54 AM GMT
    They are already married icon_biggrin.gif .... It is called 'Common Law Marriage' ... when the high court declared same sex marriage legal, this also made all those out there co-habitating eligible to be considered as Common Law Marriages.
  • charlitos666

    Posts: 290

    Jul 20, 2015 4:55 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    charlitos666 said
    Im confused, in Canada employers never ask for any sort of proof of marriage in order to extend their benefits to your partner. This is the case for both, straight and gay couples. They simply ask for name and last name of whoever you claim to be ur partner and voilá, he/she gets benefits too. Am I missing something?

    What you're missing is a long tradition in the US of benefits, and inheritance, and other spousal rights, depending upon a legal marriage document. Now whether that could ever be changed to the less structured system you're describing for Canada is not predictable, but I would say unlikely in the near term.

    It's the US system we've got. And since LGBT are transitioning into that existing, formerly all-straight system, we can expect to see the same rules being applied to us. The LAST thing we want to be asking for is "special treatment", which infuriates the US Right even more.




    Now Im definetly confused. I though this was about employers extending benefits to domestic parteners. Benefits such as healthcare, short/long term dissability, dental, life insurance and what not. These extended benefits dont require much paper work except for ur partner signing a form to accept the terms. Im not sure why employers in the U.S are going out of their way to block extended coverage unless you are married. Its a weird concept for me just like the fact that americans have a legal claim of 0 vacation days.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2015 5:02 AM GMT
    charlitos666 said
    Its a weird concept for me just like the fact that americans have a legal claim of 0 vacation days.

    I think you just answered your own question. Two different countries, 2 different systems.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jul 20, 2015 6:44 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    charlitos666 said
    Im confused, in Canada employers never ask for any sort of proof of marriage in order to extend their benefits to your partner. This is the case for both, straight and gay couples. They simply ask for name and last name of whoever you claim to be ur partner and voilá, he/she gets benefits too. Am I missing something?

    What you're missing is a long tradition in the US of benefits, and inheritance, and other spousal rights, depending upon a legal marriage document. Now whether that could ever be changed to the less structured system you're describing for Canada is not predictable, but I would say unlikely in the near term.

    It's the US system we've got. And since LGBT are transitioning into that existing, formerly all-straight system, we can expect to see the same rules being applied to us. The LAST thing we want to be asking for is "special treatment", which infuriates the US Right even more.


    You're right. We have been pushing for equal treatment, not the special treatment that the fulminating fundamentalists misleadingly say we are asking for. Anything we do that could be construed as demanding special treatment could be used against us and should be carefully avoided.
  • charlitos666

    Posts: 290

    Jul 20, 2015 11:52 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    charlitos666 said
    Its a weird concept for me just like the fact that americans have a legal claim of 0 vacation days.

    I think you just answered your own question. Two different countries, 2 different systems.


    There are many reasons why extended benefits to domestic partners should not require such strict demands. Equal treatment is one thing, but you still need to fight harder for basic rights that go way beyond your sexual orientation. Equal treatment is "duh" and somethig to be expected, not something to be thankful for to the point that you are willing to forgive everything else.
  • run26

    Posts: 41

    Jul 20, 2015 2:54 PM GMT
    charlitos666 said
    Art_Deco said
    charlitos666 said
    Its a weird concept for me just like the fact that americans have a legal claim of 0 vacation days.

    I think you just answered your own question. Two different countries, 2 different systems.


    There are many reasons why extended benefits to domestic partners should not require such strict demands. Equal treatment is one thing, but you still need to fight harder for basic rights that go way beyond your sexual orientation. Equal treatment is "duh" and somethig to be expected, not something to be thankful for to the point that you are willing to forgive everything else.



    hi
    i am canadian....

    there are two different "systems" (i.e., countries & ideologies) at work here - and you cannot expect the outcomes to be the same.

    yes, same sex relationships - from the employment benefits perspective (as per the original post), have been around forever (think it was the late 70s). in part, it resulted when two men took an employee up a human rights case. the courts judged that a same sex couple could no be discriminated against and were entitled to benefits. when i took my first job after grad school in 1980, i and my partner had same sex benefits. as previously noted, at hiring in completing your paper work, you just put down the name of your partner (same sex or otherwise).

    a fun fact on gay marriage....
    i live in british columbia. as many of you may know, gay marriage has been around for quiet awhile. when the government brought in the law, there were a few people who refused to marry same sex couples. again, off to the courts some couple who were refused to be married go. the rules here in bc are if you refuse to marry a same sex couple, you lose your licence to perform marriages. you never hear of anyone refusing to marry a same sex couple now.

    cheers,
    pdq
  • charlitos666

    Posts: 290

    Jul 20, 2015 3:18 PM GMT
    run26 said
    charlitos666 said
    Art_Deco said
    charlitos666 said
    Its a weird concept for me just like the fact that americans have a legal claim of 0 vacation days.

    I think you just answered your own question. Two different countries, 2 different systems.


    There are many reasons why extended benefits to domestic partners should not require such strict demands. Equal treatment is one thing, but you still need to fight harder for basic rights that go way beyond your sexual orientation. Equal treatment is "duh" and somethig to be expected, not something to be thankful for to the point that you are willing to forgive everything else.



    hi
    i am canadian....

    there are two different "systems" (i.e., countries & ideologies) at work here - and you cannot expect the outcomes to be the same.

    yes, same sex relationships - from the employment benefits perspective (as per the original post), have been around forever (think it was the late 70s). in part, it resulted when two men took an employee up a human rights case. the courts judged that a same sex couple could no be discriminated against and were entitled to benefits. when i took my first job after grad school in 1980, i and my partner had same sex benefits. as previously noted, at hiring in completing your paper work, you just put down the name of your partner (same sex or otherwise).

    a fun fact on gay marriage....
    i live in british columbia. as many of you may know, gay marriage has been around for quiet awhile. when the government brought in the law, there were a few people who refused to marry same sex couples. again, off to the courts some couple who were refused to be married go. the rules here in bc are if you refuse to marry a same sex couple, you lose your licence to perform marriages. you never hear of anyone refusing to marry a same sex couple now.

    cheers,
    pdq


    I dont think we are talking about the same thing. Most of what you are saying favours my argument but it seems as if you are trying to disagree or something of the sort.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 20, 2015 8:15 PM GMT
    AMoonHawk saidThey are already married icon_biggrin.gif .... It is called 'Common Law Marriage' ... when the high court declared same sex marriage legal, this also made all those out there co-habitating eligible to be considered as Common Law Marriages.


    Yes, I hadn't yet thought about that, but for all those states except Louisiana and the community property states, as long as the requisite period of cohabitation would have occurred, those couples would indeed be married by common law! How cool is that!

    And additionally, even if the couples were living in a community property state but had previously lived together long enough in a common law state to be considered married, they could obtain a declaratory judgment from the court of the fact of their common law marriage which could then be used as evidence of marriage in the community property states.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Jul 20, 2015 11:58 PM GMT
    charlitos666 said
    Art_Deco said
    charlitos666 said
    Its a weird concept for me just like the fact that americans have a legal claim of 0 vacation days.

    I think you just answered your own question. Two different countries, 2 different systems.


    There are many reasons why extended benefits to domestic partners should not require such strict demands. Equal treatment is one thing, but you still need to fight harder for basic rights that go way beyond your sexual orientation. Equal treatment is "duh" and somethig to be expected, not something to be thankful for to the point that you are willing to forgive everything else.


    Considering that we now have equal rights, it would be better for non-gays to fight for more rights else we could be accused of demanding special rights.
  • charlitos666

    Posts: 290

    Jul 21, 2015 1:16 AM GMT
    FRE0 said
    charlitos666 said
    Art_Deco said
    charlitos666 said
    Its a weird concept for me just like the fact that americans have a legal claim of 0 vacation days.

    I think you just answered your own question. Two different countries, 2 different systems.


    There are many reasons why extended benefits to domestic partners should not require such strict demands. Equal treatment is one thing, but you still need to fight harder for basic rights that go way beyond your sexual orientation. Equal treatment is "duh" and somethig to be expected, not something to be thankful for to the point that you are willing to forgive everything else.


    Considering that we now have equal rights, it would be better for non-gays to fight for more rights else we could be accused of demanding special rights.



    Close icon_smile.gif

    If gays were enjoying a system that would allow them to extend benefits to their domestic partners with almost no effort that only proves how ridiculous it was for straight couples to do any different.

    It bothers me when gays just bend over and take it up the ass when they dont even like it icon_razz.gif all because they finally got basic rights they should have never been denied in the first place. Please people, have some respect for yourselves. Theres no reason for corporate america to demand proof of marriage to extend their befenits to your partner so instead of accepting their bullshit how about you demand the same "special" gay treatment to be applied to straight couples as well? That was all I was getting at.
  • Jeepguy2

    Posts: 159

    Jul 21, 2015 2:25 AM GMT
    What really sucks is that one reason I decided to explore my sexual attraction to men was because I knew DID NOT want to get married, and every woman I ever dated for more than a few weeks started trying to plan a wedding, I guess now I will be getting that from guys. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jul 21, 2015 2:48 AM GMT
    Jeepguy2 saidWhat really sucks is that one reason I decided to explore my sexual attraction to men was because I knew DID NOT want to get married, and every woman I ever dated for more than a few weeks started trying to plan a wedding, I guess now I will be getting that from guys. icon_rolleyes.gif


    No worries, I'm sure you'll still be gone before sunrise and before they can get your number icon_wink.gif

    Besides, guys are not women, not all of them have aspirations to build a nest
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 21, 2015 3:11 AM GMT
    Jeepguy2 saidWhat really sucks is that one reason I decided to explore my sexual attraction to men was because I knew DID NOT want to get married, and every woman I ever dated for more than a few weeks started trying to plan a wedding, I guess now I will be getting that from guys. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Maybe its the women you are attracted to that was the problem. I know plenty of women who are not interested in marriage or play dudes just as much as men play women.