The company I work for has introduced a new policy that states that they will be offering to cover domestic partners under thier insurance policies.
I was looking into this, since I have been living with my girlfriend for three years, dont seem to think there is a reason to believe it will end soon. However, I was told that it only covered same sex couples.
I asked the reasoning, and they stated that "heterosexuals can marry, and when they decide to, they will both be covered."
Now, I hate crappy lawsuits, but I was thinking of calling the ACLU and asking them to represent me. If a person cannot be denied a job based on thier sexual orientation, how can a person be denied benefits based on thier sexual preference?
Originally posted by StaggerLeeThe company I work for has introduced a new policy that states that they will be offering to cover domestic partners under thier insurance policies.
I was looking into this, since I have been living with my girlfriend for three years, dont seem to think there is a reason to believe it will end soon. However, I was told that it only covered same sex couples.
I asked the reasoning, and they stated that "heterosexuals can marry, and when they decide to, they will both be covered."
Now, I hate crappy lawsuits, but I was thinking of calling the ACLU and asking them to represent me. If a person cannot be denied a job based on thier sexual orientation, how can a person be denied benefits based on thier sexual preference?
Sounds to me like you have a legitimate complaint, Stagger. I'd go for it, and I think this is a policy that needs to be challenged.
Now, is it ok for me yell THEATRE! in a crowded fire?
Originally posted by StaggerLeeNow, I hate crappy lawsuits, but I was thinking of calling the ACLU and asking them to represent me. If a person cannot be denied a job based on thier sexual orientation, how can a person be denied benefits based on thier sexual preference?
Call 'em up. There has to be a qualifying definition of "domestic partner" somewhere, and if it refers to same-sex couples specifically (or actually even if it doesn't) then you'd think a lawyer would be able to get that changed. Heck, I'd half-expect even the inquiry from the lawyer might get the policy changed provided there was a reasonable chance you were LEGALLY correct.
EDIT: No sleepy means poor typey.
(edited by JayJayDean on 26.8.04 2041) “To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
My thinking is that if she meets all the other standards that they need to qualify, which they are 'formulating' at this time, with the exception of gender, is her gender the only thing disqualifying her? If so, that just doesnt seem right to me.
I did a little look around, and the only real thing I ever saw that was a constant for defining Domestic Partnership were: Live together for X amount of years Be financially interdependant
She meets the criteria, except for the having a penis thing.
What kind of good Republican sues his worker using an ACLU lawyer? LOL!
Now, do they cover people who have filed for domestic partnership with the state? Because that is definitely gender neutral. I'm almost certain any two people can file for domestic partnership if the state or locality has that law. If they have their own definition of "Domestic Partner" that's different.
I would, of course, like to point out that if you want to get in the business of complaining about a policy that only gives benefits to a partner of a specific gender, there's better ones to complain about
Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe. - Euripides
Originally posted by MoeGatesNow, do they cover people who have filed for domestic partnership with the state? Because that is definitely gender neutral. I'm almost certain any two people can file for domestic partnership if the state or locality has that law. If they have their own definition of "Domestic Partner" that's different.
THat is often the case. Often, there is no domestic partner option for heterosexual couples.
This is why I would rather see gay marriage than the current system, incidentally...
I have a problem with this period. I am not moralizing but without a legal commitment why should a company grant benefits. I realize this is one of the arguments for gay marriage. Therfore, come up with a civil union fr gyas and then I'm happy but not thrilled.