When proposal 2 passed in Michigan, it essentially dismantled same-sex domestic partner benefits for University of Michigan employees. This has been widely regarded by our local community as a tragedy.
Because my husband is a UM Employee, we got a flyer in the mail stating, essentially,
‘‘We would like to announce that our Same Sex Domestic Partner Benefits program has been terminated.’’
and then, directly below this paragraph,
‘‘We would like to announce our new eligibility program, ‘‘Other Qualified Adult.’’ Visit us at http://www.umich.edu/~benefits/eligibility/
to learn more about health benefit eligibility.’’
Click on the PDF link for ‘‘Other Qualified Adult’’ and… well, see if you can figure it out.
I honor my alma mater for never ceasing to fight the good fight. I don’t give a shit if we never win a football game again… this is the reason I love my school. They could have kowtowed and thrown up their hands and said, ‘‘sorry, nothing we can do.’’
Thanks, U of M, and every other university/business/institution gutsy enough to stick to its principles. You made my day (and gave me quite a laugh)!
Do I correctly interpret that Spouses can have benefits, Same-Sex Partners (now the new and shiny “Other Qualified Adult” can have benefits, but opposite sex long term relationship partnerships (“living in sin”) cannot? Just curious.
Actually, benefits for opposite sex domestic partners are not uncommon, though less so than for same sex. And the rules defining them for UM look strict. (Me = benefits administrator).
Still though, good for them.
ETA: Shoot, misread. Rule #7 combined with the incest rules effectively makes this same sex partners only. Boo. Still better than nothing, I guess.
I agree, the rules are strict, and I’m disappointed they don’t include opposite-sex benefits for long term domestic partners. However, I have to believe they are just trying to work within the limits of state law.
I suppose this raises the issue of whether unmarried relationships are more or less ‘‘legitimate’’ than married relationships (I don’t believe they are) and why married people get special treatment from the U.S. government as well as the general approval of society.
I have a huge problem with not letting gay people marry. But make that problem go away, and I have zero problem with requiring people to get married in order to get benefits for their significant other. You can ascribe any personal/religious significance to marriage that you like, or not, but as a public policy matter it should simply be a way to formally register that you voluntarily are entangling your life with someone else’s: you want them to inherit your assets if you die without a will, you want them to be able to visit you in the hospital if you are sick, you want them to automatically be considered the other parent of any kids you produce while married, and so forth.
If you are ready to say formally through marriage “hey, this person is my FAMILY,” then an employer should be ready to provide them with benefits. But if you are simply fond enough of someone to share living quarters and/or sexual relations, why should an employer provide insurance on that basis?
Sorry, that’s a bit of a hijack, maybe something for a separate thread.
I agree with you, kind of. Before my husband and I were married it just seemed like our relationship was not considered as ‘‘legitimate’’ as others, and that was really irritating, especially because the people who held those opinions were generally really lousy spouses themselves. I often wonder if it would be good for ANYONE to be able to form this legal agreement, like two single straight women living together who could really use the tax break. It might even sort of be justified legally because one household generally can use fewer resources than two separate households, so it’s more efficient in the long run.
I don’t know–this opinion is not very fleshed out. On the one hand, I do consider my marriage sacred (not for religious reasons, though there is some kind of free-floating spirituality to it.) On the other hand, my relationship was really sacred to me before I had that little piece of paper, so it has less to do with the actual institution and more to do with who I’m married to.
Yeah, I really don’t know. It’s definitely worthy of thought though.
