Does Hillary Clinton Support Federal Benefits for Same-Sex Couples at State?
Reader Comments
here is the answer
make everyone pay for their benefits.. end of discussion
domestic partnerships/relationships/discrimination
is it not right to also offer the same benefits to female/male relationships that are not married, if it's done for same sex domestic relationships?
fair and balanced
I am not sure that Haberman was responding to my posting (almost simultaneous). My comments were directed to the case where the employer pays all or most of the premiums for health insurance (more common for government than in the private sphere). If employees pay the full amount, then of course they should be entitled to the full benefits. It certainly appears that most of the argument for coverage, for those not now eligible for family rates, is asking for extra compensation which is not paid to singles (also: if two married employees work for an employer who pays the premiums, usually they would be enrolled under one "family" policy, though they might be allowed two "single" policies). As a Libertarian, I think government should stay out of the sex/marital issues, and surely not countenance the discriminatory treatment of the single employee. (The $7000 I mentioned is really an understatement, since employer paid health insurance is not considered taxable earnings -- hence the equivalent value of the differential is probably well over $10000/year.)
SAME SEX MARRIAGE BENEFITS
THE BENEFITS FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELIGOUS ISSUE. IT THEY PAY THEIR PREMIUMS FOR MEDICAL AND OTHER INSURANCE, THEY SHOULD RECEIVE THE BENEFTS.
Fairness?? Just compensation??
It is risible to expand already egregiously unfair compensation practices to yet another group. Should not equal pay be given for equal work? This applies not only to hourly pay or salaries but also to benefits, such as health insurance. The premiums for family coverage average about $7000/year above the single coverage rates. For what additional value?? When the perverse start to argue for real equity, then they might be taken seriously. The current subsidy is unfair not only to the single, but also in cases where spouses both work for the same employer.
I am willing to pay taxes to support schools and other services for children, and to support welfare for unfortunates, but see no equity in supporting some adults solely because of the "married" label, regardless of "sexual orientation" or lack of same. Anyone have a good argument for such inequality?
The Existence of "Are you Kidding" Is Vaguely Unfortunate
Are you Kidding: really?
equality! but not for everyone?
I see nothing wrong with giving same sex couples the same benefits that opposite sex couples get. Same work same pay and benefits. As for aberrant behavior, that is defined as:differing substantially from the usual or natural. Same sex attraction occurs throughout nature so I guess it's natural.
The most disturbing comment is the one that these benefits should be denied for economic reasons, are you saying to rescind all benefits given to spouses and family members? I think you would be against providing benefits to these gay Americans even in times of great economic abundance.
Are you kidding?
OK taxpayers, do I really hear correctly that you want to pay for health care and so forth for people who do no actual work for our nation just because they have some kind of sexual relationship with a federal employee? We are in the midst of a major economic recession that may be as bad or worse than the great depression and you want to take limited tax revenue and provide benefits for people on the basis of their having sex with one another? Are you kidding?
It's good enough for our largest military/defense contractor
It should be good enough for the State Department.
Lockheed Martin has provided such benefits for years. And LM proudly notes that more than 75% of their business is paid with US taxpayer's dollars.
Clinton
Sorry, HannukkahBush, but you aren't factoring in the large number of military and civilian federal employees who WOULD be directly impacted by any change in the 1996 law! Wake up and read.
