Am I Being Petty And Ungrateful?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Brief background.
After losing our health insurance through no fault of our own back in April, I finally got hired full time at my job and am now eligible for health insurance for both myself and my domestic partner. Some of you may remember that we recently got “whatever’d” now that the new Nevada Domestic Partners law took effect on October 1st.

So, to get qualified for the insurance for him, we both had to sign a paper and get it notarized, basically stating that we are indeed a couple, of legal age, living in a committed relationship. Fair enough.

Now the “petty and ungrateful?” part of this thread.

I was informed that we will need to sign and notarize the same paperwork, every year, to keep him insured on this plan. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, this paperwork is not exactly difficult to do – other than having to chase down a notary and getting it submitted in time every year.

However, not a single heterosexual couple has to “prove” they are still married every year to keep them both insured. As a matter of fact, they don’t even have to supply any proof whatsoever – just fill in the blank next to “spouse” and that’s it. No notary, no marriage certificate – nada.

It sort of irks me that somehow we are considered an iffy couple that has to prove we are still together, whereas heterosexual couples are just assumed to be happily wedded until proven otherwise. BTW, we have been together for 28 ½ years.

I know, I know – I should be thankful and grateful that the insurance allows domestic partners, and should be thankful and grateful that we even have insurance now – but still, am I being petty and ungrateful by wondering why, exactly, we have to annually legally document the fact that we are still together?

2

No, you’re not being petty and ungrateful. This kind of thing is one of the many reasons I think the US needs full marriage equality. To hell with smiling weakly and thanking the ever-benevolent insurance companies through clenched teeth for tossing you a crumb with strings attached. You’re being treated as a second-class citizen for no good reason.

3

I’m thinking your insurance hasn’t yet adapted to the new Domestic Partner law. You seem to be being treated like a plain old de-facto couple. If you know of others at your work who are unmarried couples you could ask them if they need to jump the same hoops.

Which is to say - by the time next year rolls around you may find that they’ve twigged to the current legal situation and do not require this of you. And if they haven’t, possibly a nice note (“you DO know that me and my SO are legally hitched, right?”) might expidite a change.

4

No, that isn’t petty. You’re being discriminated against, plain and simple. I have no idea what the laws are over there, so I can’t give any advice, but it sucks, and you’re right to feel irritated.

5

Yeah, I’m going to agree that this is a totally reasonable thing to be annoyed at.

While, yes, him being covered under your insurance is a good thing. A great thing. This kind of petty discrimination sucks.

Also, I wonder if this sort of thing would even be legal for a married hetero couple. If so, but it’s not being applied to them, then your insurer is being baldfacedly discriminatory. If not, then the domestic partnerships in Nevada are inadequate in this regard and I’d consider petitioning your rep to get the hole plugged.

6

I’m all for marraige for all. No doubt there.

But in the constraints of the system you are in I can understand why they want proof every year and they don’t from married couples.

If you are married and then next year you aren’t you got divorced. These are legally defined characteristics of your relationship. Once you get legally divorced you are in “the system” as divorced and can be checked as such.

If you are in a relationship like you describe the only way the insurance company knows if you are still together is …??? How? They depend on you to tell them I suppose. When you break up do you need to go to the courthouse and say you broke up? How do people know you aren’t together?

It would be easier to just get married.

7

If a heterosexual married couple divorced, there’d be paperwork on file indicating they’re divorced. I assume that’s why the insurance company wouldn’t have a similar requirement for such couples.

DMark, you’re still not being at all petty. It may be a minor hassle, but it’s still a hassle and one which shouldn’t be necessary. As Olentzero said, this is one of the reasons I support full marriage equality and, if you don’t mind, I may use this story as an example of why I think it’s necessary.

8

Wouldn’t there be similar paperwork on file if DMark and his partner split? I mean, even if they’re not “married”, once you get legally “whatever’d”, don’t you have to get legally “un-whatever’d” to dissolve it?

9

According to this, you can only dissolve it by one of two legal methods involving notifying the state. I’d actually recommend printing out that little FAQ and bringing it to whatever idiot is asking you to provide annual proof.

10

You mean not a single heterosexual married couple has to prove they are still married every year. Presumably heterosexual couples in domestic partnerships will have to jump through the same hoops as you do.
BTW, I wouldn’t expect this requirement to end- it’s more likely to be extended. I’ve worked for my employer for 15 years. Prior to this year, I had to sign a statement stating that my children attend college full-time to keep their coverage. This year, I had to provide copies of my tax return (with financial info blanked out) to prove that my husband and I still file as married. I had to provide birth certificates to prove that my children are my children and transcripts to prove that they are in school full-time and eligible for coverage. Apparently there were a lot of people covering ex-spouses, former domestic partners, children who were not eligible , etc when there was no proof required.

11

The “whatever’d” he referred to is being legally “domestic partnered” in Nevada-- he DID go to the courthouse and get the greatest amount of legal recognition currently offered to a same-sex couple. He is on record now, so he would in fact have to go to the courthouse to let them know if partnership dissolved.

This is, of course, the sort of thing that illustrates why civil unions and domestic partnerships in lieu of same-sex marriage are inadequate.

12

:rolleyes: The “idiot” is following company policy and has no more say over it than the OP. Yeah, bringing a little card printed from a website is going to work wonders here.

The OP has every right to be annoyed. The policy is bullshit. It would piss me right off too. We’ve made a lot of progress but we still have a ways to go.

13

Defensive much?

The website is a government document, and therefore a reference. I wasn’t suggesting the OP lurch into the office going, “duh, hey mister! da intarwebz sez im married!” Nor was I suggesting personal antagonism between DMark and The Policy Enforcer.

The “idiot” may not have the power to change the policy, but said idiot certainly has superiors to whom he can report a problem. The word of the OP alone is perhaps not enough to motivate his doing so. Evidence suggesting that corporate policy is not in compliance with a new law might be taken more seriously. The idea is to take the “idiot” and put him into a position where he has to take action rather than mindlessly following corporate policy. I just thought it might be more effective than appeals to logic.

ETA: I think my use of the word “idiot” may have been needlessly inflammatory. I stand by it, because I think enforcing a policy of discrimination is idiotic, but without knowing the individual I can’t truly say whether he is an idiot or merely misguided.

14

Furthermore, you can’t say whether or not he is morally opposed to the policy and is working to change it from within. He can’t just make the executive decision to not enforce the policy even when faced with flawless logic and legal arguments. Doing so could very likely cost him his job. I hate it when drones are abused for things over which they have no control. Treating them like they are an idiot and/or getting all indignant to them because of policy set by someone in another city who is ten levels up the corporate ladder is abuse. How this makes me “defensive” is beyond me.

The more useful thing to do would be to send a copy of the FAQ along with a letter to the corporate offices. Talk to the ACLU or equivalent and see if there really is some sort of legal standing here and have a lawyer write a letter. Don’t treat some clerk like he is an idiot.

15

I see a difference between “enforcing policy over which you have no control” and “enforcing discriminatory policy over which you have no control.” Subtle, perhaps, but there you go. I know that domestic partnership isn’t for gays only, and I know gays are not a protected class anyway, but seriously: if it were corporate policy to make a racial group jump through extra hoops, would that be okay because it was policy?

You also have a very low threshold for “abuse.” DMark didn’t actually say that he had had such an encounter, he said he “was informed.” By email? A parade of tattooed elephants? The idiot drone is a possible scenario, but so far only in my imagination. I really don’t think that an anonymous internet poster calling a fictional corporate drone an “idiot” is abuse.

Anyway, I will withdraw the insult if it turns out that Fictivius McGhee said to DMark, “I’m sorry; this is a policy I must enforce, but I have no control over it. {I am attempting to change it} {I will bring the new law to the attention of my superiors} {You might want to talk to Bart Les Hastards, our Compliance Officer}.”

16

Ah, sorry to hear that. Sounds like they’re getting there, but you still have a loooong way to go.

17

Of course it wouldn’t be ok nor is it ok in the case presented DMark as I already said. My issue is with venting at the wrong guy. The HR guy at my company who deals with such things is a gay man and a friend of mine. He’s been with his partner for like ten years. He has to enforce our policy which is that gay domestic partners have to fill out an extra form. They don’t have to do bullshit like resubmit it every year but they still have to take an extra step thanks to the assholes who voted for Prop 8. If someone gave him shit about it because his boss’s boss’s boss in another State who he has met maybe twice in four years set the policy, I’d be seriously pissed off. No amount of argument complete with printed out cites from the internet are going to do any good. He also, by the way, plans the three times a year blood drive in which he is forbidden to participate. Should we go off on him for that too?

18

In order to keep my family on my plan, I had to supply copies of marriage certificates, birth certificates, and tax returns (incriminating info blacked out, of course.)

I don’t know if this is something I will need to provide every year going forward, but it was more than just checking off a box this year.

19

First of all, thank you for your responses. Sometimes I have thin skin and go off on a rant and wanted to find out if this is one of those pissy moments, but at least many of you feel I am not being petty or ungrateful for being irked.

I am not stupid and will certainly do what it takes to remain insured - that is a priority and will keep the insurance policy in effect, even if I have to grin and bear it and say “yes, Massah”.

The Nevada Domestic Partnership law only just went into effect on October 1, 2009, so what I am probably going to do next year is submit a copy of our official paperwork, along with the FAQ sheet and suggest that this might suffice instead of requiring the annual, notarized paperwork. We’ll see how that flies.

The HR person is simply doing their job (as others have noted) and I believe this is a requirement from the insurance company (in this case, Blue Cross Blue Shield).
Actually, one of the people in the HR department is Gay and he and his partner have been filing this same paperwork yearly for about 8 years now - that I how I found out we have to do the same every year.

So, I have 11 months to simmer down and prepare my approach before the paperwork is required again - who knows, by then they might have changed the policy or there could be some other national insurance available, making the point moot.

And again, in the grand scheme of things - this is hardly a reason for me to pout and lose sleep, but it did tick me off a bit. I’ll get over it and it helps to know many of you sort of understand my annoyance.

20

I know it may be irksome, but please, consider it progress. Five years ago you wouldn’t have been able to include your partner on your plan at all. We are getting there, slowly but surely.