January 23, 2006

• I don't see where this is so bad. It's not like the forms say "Are you and your sweetie doing the nasty, you sexy thang?" They're merely having those who'd get the benefits certify that this is a partnership of a nature other than roommates. I can't think of a more tactful way to say it, to be honest.
• Proof? The only real proof is doing it on a desk in front of a bean counter. Now that's proof.
• Hot girl-on-girl proof! bow-chicka-bow!
• I'd have no problem with it as long as they asked married couples the same question, and the question carried the same weight. (In other words, the people who thought up the question/requirements have engaged in the fallacy of equivocation as love is not equal to sex.)
• then why do I love sex so?
• Ah, Florida is in the news again, huh?
• I'm pretty much in agreement with what Lara said. Some sort of assertion that your partnership is romantic/sexual in nature is reasonable to at least make it a little less easy for people to game the system.
• On the other hand, whether true or not, married couples are assumed to have entered into a relationship that includes sex. They've already made that declaration to the world.
• What if you have both taken a vow of chastity for religious reasons?
• Or if you have a marriage of convenience?
• Playing devil's advocate, then, should they just let any two people living together claim benefits without making any attempt to find out if they're just apartment-sharing for the benefits? And if not, what would be a better way to ask this delicate question?
• This is what videotape is for.
• Again, I'm all for asking the question as long as it applies to everyone equally, including married couples.
• But then, Nomen, what if a married couple answers that their relationship is not non-platonic? Do you deny them benefits?
• But see married couples have a license to prove they're married. What we need is some way domestic partners could . . . uh oh.
• I guess I'd ask "Are you in a committed relationship with x?", but I don't really see this so much as an intentionally discriminatory question. I really doubt anyone sat down and said "Let's stick it to those non-marrieds and find out if they're doing it."
• I know that that's the subtext of this discussion, petebest, and please don't think I'm weighing in against same sex marriage. I'm only saying that it seems to me that the University's heart is in the right place by giving benefits to domestic partners, married or not, and are trying to find the most tactful way to ask the question. Yes, they may have failed in that, but if they were all a bunch of gay-bashers, I doubt they'd be giving the benefits to begin with.
• Um... it's still illegal to have sex with a partner of the same sex in some states, right? So can they arrest you if you go visit one of those states after signing this legal document?
• Actually, Gay Basher is a giant, misshapen superhero who is gay and goes around bashing crime and who is green. GAY BASHER BASH YOU GOOD! - such is his battlecry. Anyway - yeah.
• No, that's clear Lara, I was just exercising my unique brand of spot-on wittiness while flashing my killer smile and totally getting it on with all the birds.
• If but only if non-married couples are denied based on this one question, then yes, married couples should also be denied. If it is the only arbitrating criteria then it is a bad single choice. (I will note, however, there isn't enough information in that article to say if it is or not. Cavanaugh said he personally wouldn't enforce it, but that is really passing the responsibility as he is not saying someone else wouldn't enforce it.) I hope there is some sort of fairly weighted system of questions of which this is just one. (If you're wondering how to make a list of such questions, I would suggest asking questions in a clinical setting to couples who are married but no longer engage in sex about the nature of their relationship would be one way.) But I do agree with you that this is in a general sense a good thing, even if the implementation of it sucks.
• "Friends with Benefits." tee hee
• I did a little more research on domestic partnership in Florida; I had originally thought that the "non-platonic" part was implicit, but now I see that technically it doesn't have to be. Jeez.
• Doing what? Sorry, I was out back smoking a cigarette. Ohhhh, now I get it. I think gay marriage is the only answer. Or muscle up the word "partner".
• I think that we should allow only lara to comment on future stories. s/he seems very level headed about things. We are all redundant.
• Maybe we need a new word. "Partner" could be business partner, and "domestic partner" could technically be roommate. Any nominations for words that convey the meaning?
• Intimate Partners?
• I do have to say that my urine comments in the Daisy May thread were very reasonable.
• "domestic partner" always implies "sexual partner"? News to me...
• Personal companion. In romantic union. Closer than average chumminess. Are you together as a couple? Actually, I think 'non-platonic relationship' is fine.
• Yeah, but if you ask if you're "intimate partners", you're once again asking that offensive "are you knocking boots?" question.
• "Fuck Buddy" is out.
• What if it's two maiden aunt sisters who are "life partners" in the nonsexual sense that they have decided to be one another's best friends and caretakers throughout their lives, while not getting it on in any way at all? Or an elderly couple of hippies who don't believe in marriage and yet are too physically fragile to make the beast with two backs, and instead just like weaving hemp ropes and listening to the Grateful Dead together? Why couldn't they get benefits?
• Oh, and they're all at the University of Florida. For some reason.
• Maybe it would be simpler if places that were going to extend such benefits just let you designate one other person to be covered. It could be your brother, a friend, lover, spouse, or anyone. Then no embarassing questions at all. As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that it's discriminatory against unmarried/un-life-partnered people that they get less of a benefit. And although the preceding statement is over the top, it's still kinda true...
• I dont think that's over the top at all. Where this discussion seems to be going is what I've always wondered: if we're going to have gay marriage (and dont get me wrong, I am 100% in favor), then why cant two heterosexual friends marry? Why discriminate? Many M/F couples have sexless marriages? Why is platonic same-sex affection any less valid? The bottom line, for me anyway, is that marriage as a legal contract is silly. Be married or not in the eyes of God or whatever you might believe in, but I dont see why it should be a business deal.
• Ma blonde!
• When I worked in HR at a company that offered domestic partner benefits, the requirement there was that the finances of the partners be "intertwined." As you generally won't buy your roomate's groceries or have a joint bank account with him, you cannot claim them as a domestic partner. You needed to get an affidavit saying that you rely on each other financially before you can register for benefits. perhaps not the best solution either, but it strikes me as a bit better than the intimacy requirement.
• Whether we end up with gay marriage or not, I would love to see religion taken out of state-recognized unions. It's not popular here in the States to admire anything about French society, but I think they have the right idea about religious marriage. Do it if you feel like, but if you want that pension for your spouse you've got to make the trip to the town hall.
• And once you answer the question, they get out the bright orange pointy finger, hold it up, and everybody in the office yells, "FORNICATORS!!"
• And then you get stoned. But it's really good weed I hear.
• I agree with The Underpants Monster. I think that state-sponsored marriages, under their current definition, are a violation of the first amendment. Either marriages are a legal contract open to every consenting adult regardless of the current popular religous ideals or it's a religous sacrament administered by the church -- it can't be both. And I say this (as I've said before) as a (lefty) Christian. Who lives in a state that just affirmed a DOMA law that explicitly forbids the state to give out partner benefits because that creates a "marriage-like state." Sheesh.
• When I worked in HR at a company that offered domestic partner benefits, the requirement there was that the finances of the partners be "intertwined." As you generally won't buy your roomate's groceries or have a joint bank account with him, you cannot claim them as a domestic partner. You needed to get an affidavit saying that you rely on each other financially before you can register for benefits. perhaps not the best solution either, but it strikes me as a bit better than the intimacy requirement. posted by sys7girl at 10:05PM UTC on January 23, 2006 Yes, this is exactly what my uni looks for in offering benefits. You have to have a morgage together or (preferrably) a shared bank account for a minimum of 6 months. Now I shared a lease with my roommate, but not a bank account. I did try to share a bank account with my fiance. (Married him too soon to accomplish that, stuck with husband instead). This has worked well for gay couples at my uni. Recently the grads have asked if this could be extended to committed but unmarried heterosexual couples, which makes sense.
• (Married him too soon to accomplish that, stuck with husband instead) *wipes water off keyboard*
• 'S funny, the normal flatting/roommate situation here involves a "flat" bank account into which everyone's share of rent, food, bills goes. So we're all domestic partners. And although I like Lara's idea of nominating one other person to share the benefits, that rules out polygamous relationships -- you just can't win with this system.
• Asking someone if they are in a non-platonic relationship is nowhere near the same if they are having sex. Hell, in a majority of my non-platonic relationships I never scored. Some of my non-platonic relationships I never even got to first base. People looking to get their feathers ruffled can get offended at a non-offensive question. That doesn't stop the question from being non-offensive.
• If a little hanky-panky is all that's required, then could I get health benefits for my dog? I have videos.
• "Fuck Buddy" is out Business concept, kids: we print this up on a sign, one of a series to hang on your bedroom door: "Fuck Buddy is Out" ... "Don't Come in Mom I'm Masturbating" ... "Please Don't Ask What that Smell is" ... etc.
• Hurray for Gainesville (my hometown).. Any other Gators in the house?
• How about a sign that says "Just a Mi-nute, i'm doing the Di-shes". It's what my ex used to say when we were in the bathroom together..... I never REALLY wanted to ask why, I think I was too busy laughing. on the subject of same-sex marrige... isn't it illegal in the u.s.a.? And how does this affect polygamy? I know 2 religions that allow it. One allows you to have multiple husbands AND wives. The other just multiple wives. (little known fact about some witches/pagans/neopagans/wiccans, some allow multiple partner marrige, and sex with all is not always the norm.) So, by the reasoning provided above, (assuming i'm a polygimist) I must show proof that i'm married/sleeping with these people and/or sharing a bank account?
• btw..... how do you create a new thread?
• In an ideal world, we'd all have our own damn benefits and the discussion would be moot...
• Florida: antithesis of the ideal world