A report out today states that same-sex partners of city employees would be once again left off the city's health plan. Now, we can debate that all we want, but here is the thing that REALLY pisses me off... Opposite-sex partners of city employees ALREADY receive full coverage. Opponents of giving same-sex partners coverage cite "fraud" as the chief reason saying people might lie to get benefits. Lemme get this straight. You are suggesting that people who live together as roommates for long periods of time (it takes 6 months for health benefits to kick in) would take advantage of the system by pretending to be gay??? WHAT!!!??? But, somehow, if you live together with an opposite sex roommate, you can't possibly be living pleutonicly? I guess that only happened on Three's Company. The bottom line is that conservatives on City Council don't want to give same-sex partners benefits because it goes against their beliefs. Of course, so does LIVING IN SIN!!!!!!!! ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!! Thank God for John Castillo: "We extend equal benefits to people who drink," he said. "We don't discriminate against smokers. Singling out a specific population because their beliefs do not conform to anyone's particular beliefs is not fair." AMEN!!! ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible. [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited January 30, 2001).]
Please clarify, I am not familiar with Houston city politics - Were you expecting them to approve the benifets for same-sex couples or to not be so hypocritical in their reasoning while trying to rationalize it with some half-assed excuse? ------------------ The Rockets will be the NBA champions. Believe. [This message has been edited by Puedlfor (edited January 30, 2001).]
Its unbelieveable how little our society can progress. ------------------ Ceo of the Walt Williams fan club. Web site coming soon atheistalliance.org
Question: Does Opposite Sex Partners have to be Married? or can they just be Hocked up? IF they have to be married and the city has this stipulation then they are somewhat justified since Texas does not allow Same Sex Marriages . . . . This sets the stage for the real battle same sex marriage I think the real problem is that Married people get Extra benefits this IMO is wrong to begin with Rocket River Discrimination against Single People is wrong ------------------
Opposite sex partners can claim common law marriage without technically getting married and get complete benefits and can file their taxes jointly. ------------------
There are rules for how opposite sex partners can receive benefits - proving they've lived together and shared finances for a specific period of time - but they don't have to be married. Puedlfor: I guess I didn't really expect much better out of the city council members. I was just venting. The funny part is that Anise Parker, one of the best members of council, is openly gay and has been with her lesbian partner longer than any other city council member has been with his/her wife or husband. The two most conservative members of council, Orlando Sanchez and Rob Todd are separated (or divorced in the case of Sanchez) from their wives. Todd has been carrying on an affair with his best friend and fellow city council member Bert Keller's wife!!! How is that for irony? Parker hammered Sanchez when he suggested that allowing same-sex benefits would mean more fraud cases. Parker said he was treading a VERY thin line by making the suggestion that homosexuals were less trustworthy than heterosexuals. I think that having Parker on council will make this a much more interesting issue because she won't let Todd or Sanchez slide at all. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Good Morning Rocket Fans!!! Society has made progress, just not on Houston city council ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
JEff According to the article, the opposite sex partners do have to declare common-law marriage according to Texas statute. As I read it, the rules you quoted appear to be the guidelines for same-sex paretnerships. Generally businesses (at least those I am familiar with) have been gravitating the opposite way. Same-sex partners can get health insurance benefits while opposite-sex partners cannot. Article source: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/front/810872 ------------------
Annise Parker, her partner, and I work out at the same gym! <hr width=25%> Bette Midler said it best (paraphrased): At some point, the gay community needs to stand up (economically, politically, socially) and stop letting people walk all over them. They can start by getting Sans-chest and Toad off the council. ------------------ "Breaking up is hard to do...[with] everyone trying to make it a parting befitting all the professionalism that came before. Trying to find that Olajuwon graceful fade one more time." Scott Howard-Cooper (Sacramento Bee, ESPN.com)
bobrek: In Texas, we still have common-law marriage. The state considers you married in this instance. You just have to show proof of living together for a certain period of time and declare common-law status. Businesses have been allowing same-sex benefits not just because it is the right thing to do (which it is) but because there is NO common-law or regular marriage available to same-sex partners who meet exactly the same requirements as those of the opposite sex. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Actually, I want to take something back. I said companies do it because it is the right thing to do. What I should have said is companies do it because it is good for their business. Houston has the 2nd largest gay population in the United States. It only makes sense to do whatever is necessary to attract the best employees. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Jeff I guess my point is that opposite sex partners cannot simply live together to receive the health benefits. They have to declare a common law marriage and according to the Texas statutes they have to go through a county clerk and sign the following declaration: "I SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER BY VIRTUE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS: ON OR ABOUT (DATE) WE AGREED TO BE MARRIED, AND AFTER THAT DATE WE LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AND IN THIS STATE WE REPRESENTED TO OTHERS THAT WE WERE MARRIED. SINCE THE DATE OF MARRIAGE TO THE OTHER PARTY I HAVE NOT BEEN MARRIED TO ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS DECLARATION IS TRUE AND THE INFORMATION IN IT WHICH I HAVE GIVEN IS CORRECT." Granted, same-sex partners in Texas are not afforded the same opportunity, but opposite-sex partners do have to be legally married to obtain the benefits and can't just live together. Legally, in the eyes of the Texas judicial system a common-law marriage is the same as a full fledged ceremony. ------------------
Jeff You most certainly have a valid concern. I was only taking issue with the following quote from your original post: "Opposite-sex partners of city employees ALREADY receive full coverage." If John and Jane are living together and John works for the city, Jane cannot be covered as well UNLESS they are married, either the "traditional" way or by declaring themselves common-law married. Perhaps you are saying the exact same thing, but "partners" does not generally imply man and wife. ------------------
I think the city should of at least looked at this issue a little harder, but we should put part of the responsibility back on the state for this one. Businesses, (I'm including the city government, which is usually behind the curve anyway) as a whole are very uncomfortable being innovative with benefits. Especially since most employees tend to be OK with what they have, indifferent toward a new benefit, and furious when a benefit is reduced or taken away. Companies don't like to go out on a limb with something like this. Marriage carries a legally defined relationship, with requirements set by the state. Common law marriage is legally defined -- and defined in terms of opposite sex partners. Same sex marriage / partnerships are not legally defined. If it was, with legal requirements and boundaries, it would be much easier for organizations to offer same sex benefits. It's a little unfair to ask a company, or city government, to invent a relationship that the state refuses to address. ------------------ Stay Cool...
bobrek: You are right. I should've been more clear on what I meant by "partners." I think we've pretty much covered the ironies here. I don't have a problem with the common-law tag. If people don't want a traditional marriage, I have no problem with that. To me, it seems easier just to get married than have to go through the red tape of being common law. dc: I think you hit on a good point. It is crazy to ask the city or any business to define a relationship, but it is even crazier to deny benefits to someone's partner simply because we are too damn provincial or unwilling to realize that two people of the same gender could have a stable, long-term relationship. I don't have a problem with people not wanting to be gay or not agreeing with the lifestyle, but denying benefits to them because we don't want our laws to have to cover people of "low moral character" when there is just as great a chance that others within the same organization are of far greater questionable moral character is just ludicrous. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I guess I just wanna protest the discrimination toward single unattached people I think If everyone go the same benefits regardless of marital status [WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BUSINESS ANYWAY . . IT'S YOUR PERSONAL LIFe. . SHOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING] this would solve a lot of problems Rocket River ------------------
They need to get rid of that stupid common-law marriage rule. I'm not sure why Houston would want to pay for unmarried partners and I'd like them to stop that too. Jeff, for once ( ) you're right, kind of. ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary Gafford Art Artisan
Granted, same-sex partners in Texas are not afforded the same opportunity, but opposite-sex partners do have to be legally married to obtain the benefits and can't just live together. But, isn't that the point? You are excluding a group of people based on the fact that they cannot marry or declare their relationship legally. You are setting up a double standard based completely on a moralistic standard that has no place in government. Juan: Funny. The fact is business does what is good for business. They wouldn't offer benefits at all if they didn't have to - to married couple or even to their own workers. They do it because it attracts good employees to their company. It is no different from offering stock options, vacation time, paid moves from other cities, tickets to sporting events, etc. Companies are rated more and more on how they treat their employees and studies have shown that the companies that treat their employees well have the highest rate of success. It shouldn't be any different for government. People are always demanding that government operate more like a business. Well, here's there chance to do that in a small way. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible. [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited January 31, 2001).]
