Maryland State Employees No Longer Able To Include Domestic Partners In Health Insurance

[marmar]

from the Baltimore Sun, via HuffPost:



The O'Malley administration has notified state employees in same-sex relationships that they won't be able to include domestic partners in their health insurance anymore.

If they want coverage, they'll have to get married.

The policy change is the result of the new Maryland law allowing same-sex marriage, which took effect Jan. 1. The thinking is that offering health coverage to an unmarried same-sex partner doesn't make sense anymore, officials said, particularly since an unmarried heterosexual partner doesn't have the same right.

But the move by the administration -- which introduced domestic partner benefits in 2009 and championed marriage equality last year -- has drawn polite dissent from some of the administration's staunchest allies. ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/maryland-state-employees-domestic-partners-health-insurance_n_3206605.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037&ir=Politics

[Bandit]

1. Fair is fair..

I agree with this... As long as everyone is treated equally...

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Of course most marriage rights stem from the Federal Government which does not recognize

these marriages at all. So 'as long as everyone is treated equally' is sort of a statement of denial. Same sex couples are not treated equally at all. They do not get many of the benefits of marriage that straight couples get, and will not until the majority refuses to treat us poorly.
So this is not all that great really, it says people have to engage in a less than equal marriage which is recognized locally only and will not offer the same financial rewards that the fully recognized marriages of their peers and counterparts. So they are being told they will be treated the same as others when it benefits the government and not at all the same as others when THAT benefits the governments. This is what they always say.
Until the US recognizes human equality, this sort of thing looks petty as fuck. Fair is fair? Let me know when our fair is equal to straight fair, we can talk.

[Bandit]

11. This has nothing to do with the Federal government

This is a State measure and it is a correct decision.

[RKP5637]

2. Yep, I see this as progress! n/t

[geek tragedy]

3. Domestic partnerships are for people who can't get married.

If you can get married, get married. Problem solved.

[Yo_Mama]

4. Surely this is required?

Since they can get married, their benefits can now be granted on the same basis as those of heterosexual couples.

Otherwise you would be offering an extra benefit to same sex partners not offered to heterosexual partners, unless you allowed opposite sex couples the right to cover partners. You could do it that way, but for expense reasons they probably don't want to do it that way.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. So you are saying that both same sex and opposite sex marriages are treated equally?

Are the straight marriages in this State only recognized by that State, not by Fed or other States? Are straight married people in that State denied the right to file jointly by the IRS? Are they denied survivor benefits under SSA?
God forbid one group get more than the other! What twisted people could endure a situation where one group gets extra benefits the other group does not get? How could such people sleep at night?

[Yo_Mama]

12. The state only controls the state law, though

Let's put it like this - MD, in changing its state law to make it clear that SS marriage is legal, has made its position known. The state law can only ensure equal treatment of the law under its own laws, and their constitutional obligation is to do that.

Thus, it seems to me that MD either has the option of making domestic partners eligible for insurance benefits for all couples, or of dropping the domestic partner bit for unmarried same sex couples. If they had ever intended to expand their health coverage system to permit this, they would have done it at the time that they originally set up domestic partner insurance.

As for getting married, if the feds still aren't recognizing SS marriage next year, it changes nothing federally for the individuals involved. They'll get married or not depending on whether they want to be married, I suppose. There are a bunch of other implications of getting married under state law, so I realize some same sex couples may decide not to do so. There are also a bunch of other legal benefits to getting married under state law, so it is a step forward.

And then consider all the same sex couples in which neither partner is employed by the state - marriage rights are doubly important for them.

We really cannot blame any state for being unable to control the federal government, and if we hadn't had the passage of DOMA, MD's action would make MD SS couples legally married in MD legally married under federal law!

[Sekhmets Daughter]

5. For some...nothing is ever enough!

This policy makes perfect sense... as long as heterosexuals are denied benefits for domestic partners. I wonder what the cost effect would be to widen the benefit structure, by allowing the enrollment of DPs for everyone, as opposed to narrowing it.

[Tikki]

7. Don't some States recognize 'common law marriages'?

...no actual ceremony but certain rights afforded to the couple?

Would that work for gay couples who for some reason or another
are not be able to have a certificated marriage?


Tikki

[randome]

8. The whole idea of marriage needs to be dropped.

Everyone should be able to designate one person as their significant other and be done with it. The SO gets inheritance rights, end-of-life choices and power of attorney. Same sex or other.

Marriage equality is great but I'm already impatient for the next step -ending the ludicrous idea that the government needs to sanction relationships.

[marmar]

10. "ending the ludicrous idea that the government needs to sanction relationships."

I tend to agree with you.

[Nye Bevan]

13. "Everyone should be able to designate one person as their significant other and be done with it."

Agreed. But "designate one person as one's significant other" is such a mouthful. Let's call it "marry" for short.

[SpartanDem]

14. As others have said domestic partnership benefits were created to get around

laws banning same sex marriage so it only make sense that this would happened once you pass a ssm law.