Domestic Partnerships Being Added to Maryland Law… Without Legislation…

O'Malley Watch ^ | December 7th, 2007 | O'Malley Watch

[enough_idiocy]

With his buddy Ralph Tyler firmly planted as the Maryland Insurance Commissioner, Martin O’Malley is using the office to put in definitions of domestic partners through regulations rather than legislation.

So, two people that share an apartment only have to get a joint bank account and insurance companies are required to recognize them as domestic partners.

A public hearing is scheduled for next week, Thursday, December 13th.

[Tanniker Smith]

can’t wait for the legal action.

[bmwcyle]

ping

[truemiester]

What is he worried about? Doesn’t he trust the voters?

[DBrow]

Do they have to share an apartment? Can more than two people get joint accounts?

If I have four roommates and we all get a joint account, does that make us domestic partners? This would be a huge benefit if three of the five have pt jobs and no health coverage.

If all five of us are covered, do I have to sleep with all of them, or just the opposite sex ones, or must I sleep with my same-sex roomies too? Or none?

[DBrow]

OK I actually read the article. Nowhere does it seem to limit the number of people covered, but they must all live at the same address and be over 18. They can’t be related (which is, I think, discriminatory and anti-progressive).

[3AngelaD]

Really. Are they going to exclude the Incestuous-Americans?

[3AngelaD]

Sounds like an immigrant boarding house. Wonder if they will enjoy waking up one day and finding out they are all in a domestic partnership. How do you sue for divorce?

[DBrow]

Apparently. They have to do that so that I, for instance, can’t claim partnership with an elderly relative and make the insurance companies pay for their health care. The non-consanguinity clause is common in “domestic partner” setups.

[3AngelaD]

Perhaps you could find a friend with an elderly relative and switch off! I’ll let you have granny if you will claim gramps.

[DBrow]

An excellent idea, having a number of guest workers sign up.

In most domestic partner schemes I’ve seen, changing partners is simple- submit a form. You have to wait six months, then you submit a form for your new partner, checking “yes” where it says have you been in a committed relationship for at least six months?

[DBrow]

Please send a fresh apple pie for evaluation before I commit, k?

Yeah, that could work! Especially if Harold and Maude is your favorite movie.

[flowerplough]

‘Twould be a huge benefit for those w/ pt jobs and no health coverage, indeed. Sounds like life imitating “art”. Wasn’t the Sandler/James “Chuck and Larry” flop attempting to find humor in a similar situation?

[maica]

Perhaps you could find a friend with an elderly relative and switch off!

&&&&

Great idea!
For the people who used to scream about govt staying out of their bedrooms, they sure do want laws and regs based on what they do in their bedrooms!

[DBrow]

I don’t know about Chuck and Larry, is this a TV show? I’m tube impaired.

[beejaa]

Here’s part of the 1972 Gay Rights Platform which was formulated in Chicago:
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers. (1972 State-8)

I don’t know if there is a deliberate conspiracy; there probably isn’t, but they want to move in this direction.

[DBrow]

There’s an, I guess you’d call it an “orientation” called polyamory that leans toward this.

Do you have a link to the platform? Sounds interesting.

“benefits for all who cohabit regardless of numbers” would be a nightmare for the insurance companies. Well, probably not; they’ll just pass the cost off on those who actually work and pay into the system.

[beejaa]

If you do a Google search for 1972 Gay Rights Platform, up pop three links:
http://www.article8.org/docs/general/platform.htm
http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/ha1972.htm
www.robertslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

[subterfuge]

Local level tyranny. I’ve heard that way back when, the people of this country ran things. Now it’s any two-bit council-woman or appointee that can change the course of American lives at their whim.

[DBrow]

Thanks!