Straight woman seeks equality under gay-rights law

King County Journal (Seattle area) ^ | 8/23/2003 | Curt Woodward

[sionnsar]

Straight woman seeks equality under gay-rights law:
Unwed Redmond worker wants her male partner to receive health benefits

One of the first tests for Washington's new gay civil rights law has an intriguing twist: The complaint was filed by a heterosexual woman.

The state's discrimination watchdogs are investigating the case, which claims unmarried straight people should get the same domestic partner benefits as their gay and lesbian co-workers.

But officials are treading carefully, Human Rights Commission Director Marc Brenman said, because upholding the claim could set a sweeping new precedent for Washington businesses.

...

The complaint, filed last week, is one of four that have spawned full-fledged investigations under the sexual orientation section of Washington's anti-discrimination law.

It was signed by Sandi Scott-Moore, a Redmond-based employee of manufacturer Honeywell International. Scott-Moore claims health insurance coverage for her male partner was denied because the unmarried couple is not of the same gender.

...

Honeywell spokesman Robert Ferris said the company does provide health benefits for the partners of its gay and lesbian employees and has a zero-tolerance stand on discrimination. But the company disagrees with Scott-Moore, he said in a statement.

...

[Khankrumthebulgar]

This is a logical conclusion to the Gay Rights Agenda. Cohabitation will become equated with Marriage. And Child Support will be assigned to Men who cohabitate with Single Moms. This is already the case in Canada.

Gays should be entitled to protections under Civil Unions. The Whole Gay Marriage thing is a Red Herring. It is an attempt to get the Government to Sanction and endorse a Lifestyle. Personally we would be better off to get Government out of Marriage and the Family Alltogether. Government interference is destroying Marriage, due to No Fault Divorce and insane Subsidization of Single Moms.

So long as we reward Women who "Cash Out" for emotional Reasons. And not for Fault reasons, Physical Abuse, Non-Support, Drug or Substance Abuse, or Adultery we will continue to see Men avoid Marriage and refuse it.

[kellynch]

Why don't they just get married? Then there would be no problem with benefits.

[Edgerunner]

Brilliant

[Emmett McCarthy]

My dog says he wants to file a claim as soon as I teach him how to type.

[beezdotcom]

I was waiting for someone to file a suit like this. My own employer makes opposite-sex domestic partners jump through additional hoops that are not required for same-sex domestic partners. Opposite-sex domestic partners can't even enroll for benefits online, but same-sex DPs can do everything as if they were married.

I still remember the HR meeting I attended about the new benefits package:

ME: "Do you have to be gay to get the domestic partner benefit?"

little HR wonkette: "Oh, no, there's an opposite-sex DP benefit."

ME: "but what if I want a same-sex DP benefit, and I'm not gay?"

HR wonkette: "Um...you need to sign an affidavit that you're in a loving and committed relationship."

ME: "Does that mean if my marriage isn't loving and committed, my wife could lose benefits?"

HR wonkette: "I don't think I want to answer any more of your questions..."

[Terabitten]

If they deny the claim then they confirm it is special rights for certain sexual behavior.
If they grant the claim then they risk gutting the whole law.

Exactly. This is why I think conservatives were 'wrong' in one sense on the gay marriage issue. We should have demanded full and equal rights AND full and equal responsibilities. That means gay divorce, gay alimony, gay child support, the whole enchilada.

It was only a matter of time until a straight couple sued for discrimination under these laws, and as a result, the laws are going to get gutted.

[goldstategop]

Exactly! If I and my girlfriend live together as partners, why shouldn't we be able to claim domestic partner benefits? The law after all, is gender neutral and should apply across the board to unmarried couples, whether straight or gay.

( No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo!)

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Dear Honeywell,

This



is a petard

But, you already knew that, didn't you?

[Orange1998]

Sure! But the system is set up making it unwise to get married ie: marriage tax penalty ect. They asked of it and now this is what they have. The ideal of marriage seems less important because of the asinine rules of modern society.

[bigfootbob]

"And Child Support will be assigned to Men who cohabitate with Single Moms."

That is the rule here too. I know several guys who pay for other mens kids.

[pepperdog]

I'm waiting for the polygamous marriage insurance. Can you imagine, a guy with six wives and 25 kids gets family plan insurance from his company the same as a guy with 1 wife and 2.5 kids (or whatever the norm is these days). I see companies refusing to provide any insurance to anyone in the near future, this will further the advance of the government health insurance ala Hillary Clinton and burden the taxpayers even further.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Exactly. This is why I think conservatives were 'wrong' in one sense on the gay marriage issue. We should have demanded full and equal rights AND full and equal responsibilities. That means gay divorce, gay alimony, gay child support, the whole enchilada.

I don't know about the alimony, but we're already seeing the divorces and custody fights.

[Aquinasfan]

So, "Honeywell ... has a zero-tolerance stand on discrimination," but will discriminate in providing umarried-partner benefits based on your partner's gender vis-a-vis your own. Political Correctness ties itself in a knot again.

I actually think this was the intent of the homo "marriage" movement in the first place. The legal definition of marriage will be continually broadened until it becomes meaningless (not that homo "marriage" hasn't already rendered the legal definition meaningless).

Then legal marriage can be done away with altogether, and the traditional notion of the family as well. With the destruction of the family comes the transformation (i.e., destruction) of society. The State will then usurp the role of the family in society, resulting in a socialistic paradise.

I can't wait.

[RSmithOpt]

Definitely, a plain view of Socialism at its best.

[Kozak]

Why doesn't the woman marry her shack up?
She does have that option.

[Orange1998]

I thoroughly enjoyed your logic. Good to know ya.

[CAWats]

Why don't they just get married? Then there would be no problem with benefits.

Some people think marriage sucks. I do.

[PajamaTruthMafia]

[longtermmemmory]

She is saying if she is treated under the same rules as the homosexuals then she does not HAVE TO marry her sex partner.

Homosexuals are entitled to benefits based on their recreational sex conduct, therefore she should be able to have the same benefit based on her sexual conduct.

IOW show me the money.

[dfwgator]