Toledo domestic partner benefits

It's obvious you no nothing of politics.

It's outrageous we should provide any benefits for these deviants. They can live their dainty lil alternative lifestyle. But it's perverted that we'd give them added benefits, encouraging their behavior.

I agree with SensorG on this. It is a basic question of fairness.

The city should not provide the same benefits to those which choose to live self-defeating homosexual lives. It would be promoting what is an ultimately counter productive lifestyle.

Methinks thou dost protest too much, OmarLittle...

Anyway, it IS a basic question of fairness. Glad to see it happening.

Fairness?, anyone using this word needs to be scrutinized. It's more a subject of correctness. Since domestic partners are basically considered equal to married couples shouldn't they also receive the same benefits?

A small cynical part of me is wondering what the ulterior motive is for proposing it in the middle of a budget crisis.

Something caught my eye in the article saying that few would actually "benefit" from this proposal because they would be subject to higher taxes by doing so overall. If so, the proposal sounds like a good natured thing, but in real life it won't change anything.
For the record, I do support the equality of relationship benefits no matter what sex, gender, or preference you are.

You must also register with the city and meet the criteria according to the article

As a lurker and occasional poster to this site I sometimes wonder if OmarLittle actually believes the things he posts or simply posts them just to get a rise out of people.

Back to the matter at hand - I couldn't agree more that this move makes sense (especially if it is true that the actual cost will be minimal) but I agree with mom2. This has ulterior motive written all over it.

If so, the proposal sounds like a good natured thing, but in real life it won't change anything.

See...that's what I'm thinking. Something that sounds good in theory, but may not really have much of an impact.

Was also wondering if the timing correlated with the changes in health care legislation and the creation of the state exchanges, etc.

I dunno...I'm not normally an overly skeptical person, but something about this announcement me wonder if there's an ulterior motive.

NO vs. KNOW

Bell is a politician; he’s getting in front of a popular issue. Often that’s more than enough motivation.

(I should add that even though I'm skeptical about the timing of the announcement, I am not opposed to domestic partner benefits.)

It took me awhile to figure out what stooks was talking about, because I didn't really read any of Omar's posts at first.

Is the Toledo domestic partner registry limited to same sex couples? Can a bf/gf who aren't ready or don't want to get married sign up so they can get benefits too?

The domestic partner registry is open to both same sex and opposite sex couples.

That's the thing I don't really get.

I understand a registry for couples who cannot legally get married.

But I'm a little torn about the idea of giving benefits to a couple that could legally marry, but chooses not to do so.

(I suppose it is one of those situations where they have to allow both groups to register, in order to keep the registry from getting protested or shot down.)

Domestic partnership registration provides an opportunity for those in a long-term, committed relationship to document that relationship. In some cases, such as with Washington State law, participants gain the benefit of things such as hospital visitation, health care decision making and other legal rights. Some registries that include heterosexual couples require that at least one of the partners is a minimum of 62 years of age.

There are many, many reasons why a heterosexual couple might not wish to marry. That doesn't diminish the validity of their relationship.

It may not diminish the validity of the relationship, but there needs to be a definition between "long term committed" and "I just want my buddy/friend to get benefits".

That's what registries make an attempt at accomplishing. And it's about a lot more than benefits, as I mentioned above.

Expect the city to use this as an excuse to increase the cost of employee healthcare come contract time.

It may not diminish the validity of the relationship, but perhaps they also shouldn't expect the benefits that come with marriage if they don't wish to actually get married.

(I didn't necessarily mean that to sound snotty, but I think there is a valid point for debate. If a couple can legally marry but have reasons to choose not to do so, that's fine. But when making that choice, there are things that go along with it.)

Marriage is a religious and social institution, yet it's treated as a legal one. A domestic partnership, whether homo- or heterosexual, is a TRUE legal arrangement that can allow for appropriate treatment of estate, tax and health issues without requiring that couples enter into an arrangement which neither of them believe in.

I make it a point to not argue here. Suffice to say that it's a lot more complicated than most folks seem to understand, and "just get married" is a lazy, ill-informed directive. It's impossible to understand everything this issue entails unless you've lived it, studied it and walked a mile in the shoes of those it affects.

gamegrrl: I think of marriage as a 100% legal action. Akin to two companies merging assets into a single new company.

Which is sad really, I use to be romantic and think of how nice the idea was. But the older I get, the more I read and hear from people, it just seems sickening. Anything religious about it is really out the window now a days. This is why I don't understand why this is even a debate, straight, gay doesn't matter to me. If you want to join assets and legal liability with another person by all means take on the risk.

I can appreciate that. However, I'm done talking about this subject in this forum.

:-)

Marriage was supposed to be about complete commitment, your supposed to promise to hold the other above all else until death. I guess not a lot of people are willing to commit to that these days.

Let me first state my wife is way to good for me, why she sticks with me I don't know. But I know several men who have spent their lives building business and don't wish to loose half of everything they have when their would be wife wants to sleep with the pool boy.

If you have assets you have spent decades building, sometimes it's not worth the fiscal gamble.

I'm too poor to get divorced!

Let me first state my wife is way to good for me,

Wait! Wait! Let me recover from my state of shock.
::slurp!::
Ah... better, better. Now then. You have a wife? The kindness and generosity of some women has never ceased to amaze me.

...why she sticks with me I don't know.

Yes, well, that would make several of us.

Okay, I'll quit. You have a wife, and every man is entitled to one good move in his life. You made yours and got married. Good for you. Although you (like the rest of us) know you could do better by your wife and family, you're doing well enough to make her happy, and that is really what counts. Your wife is a far better judge of you than you are.

Getting right back to the main topic of this thread and forcing myself to let dbw8906 alone...

Am I the only one that is blown away that Bell is proposing this now?

No, you are not the only one. This depends on what you think about Mike Bell. Those that claim to know him personally speak highly of him. Mike Bell was a fire fighter, a position which requires clear thinking under pressure, the ability to make crucial decisions correctly and a certain amount of personal bravery. All fire fighters must be fairly intelligent people as well as being physically fit. Mayor Bell is a proven quantity, so it may very well be that he's had time to rethink his position and concluded that he should change. I see nothing wrong with this, but if that's the case I think this would appeal to me a whole lot more if Hizzonner would have accompanied the announcement with an explanation to that effect.

I never said that anyone should or shouldn't get married. (And I certainly wouldn't say that someone should "just get married," if it was something they don't believe in.)

There are ways for long-term couples to establish some legal rights, for example durable power of attorney and estate issues.

I do have some experience working with benefits for domestic partnerships across the country, so it isn't as though I haven't been exposed to the details of establishing such a relationship.

Most of the heterosexual couples I handled with were basically trying to game the system. Didn't want to be married, so they could file taxes as Head of Household and the lower income partner could qualify for the EITC. (Even though the higher income partner may have been earning a 6 figure income.) Yet they still wanted the health insurance and other benefits.

Or perhaps they didn't want to lose alimony or pension from a former spouse, but still wanted to otherwise be treated just like a married couple.

I don't care if a couple gets married or not, but you can't expect to have it both ways or be treated exactly the same.

(And before anyone thinks that I was jumping to conclusions about the people gaming the system, I did not make assumptions - I was specifically told those things by the parties involved as part of my audits.)

I always thought most people's beliefs on this subject were based on religion and "morality". It was a real eye-opener when I started visiting my dad in his retirement village and found out they gossip all day long about the dozens of people who shack up without marriage because it would affect Social Security or other financial arrangements -- everyone involved is over age 65 (most are in their 80s, as a matter of fact) and religiously conservative. They're big on "American Family Values". ;-)

Wait, I could be filing head of household because my boyfriend lives with me???? (just kidding; pretty sure we don't qualify.)

In my case, the reason I don't want to get married is because I was married, for six years, before my husband died. If I don't get to grow old with him, at least I can say he was my only husband.

I didn't say it made sense; it's purely based on sentiment.

That being said, it would be nice if my boyfriend and I could qualify for domestic partner benefits, but since his name isn't on the mortgage of my house, we have no "official" proof that we're a couple. I'd work on changing that, but I'd rather both of us get a different place together instead.

I can pose one reason why a couple may not commit to marriage - financial. In a relatives case, one partner (heterosexual couple) has substantial debt from a previous failed marriage and a failed business. The other partner has an excellent credit record. So, while the debts from one partner are being slowly resolved, they wait.