Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UT faculty senate to consider extending benefits to employees' partners
Knoxville News Sentinel ^ | 03-11-2012 | Megan Boehnke

Posted on 03/11/2012 6:29:56 AM PDT by HogsBreath

UT faculty senate to consider extending benefits to employees' partners

Wendy Bach pays more for health care for her family than most of her co-workers at the University of Tennessee do.

The law professor moved here from New York City in 2010 with her partner of 19 years and their 8-year-old daughter. And while Bach's daughter is included on her employer health insurance, her partner is not.

Instead, their family pays for a separate insurance policy for her partner, a longtime educator who hasn't been working since they moved to Knoxville.

(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...


TOPICS: US: New York; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; liberalagenda

1 posted on 03/11/2012 6:30:02 AM PDT by HogsBreath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

Just go back to Sodom and get your coverage there.


2 posted on 03/11/2012 6:38:10 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath
So who knocked up the dyke? Let them pay the insurance.
3 posted on 03/11/2012 6:38:23 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

It would be nice to see them call “partner” what it really is, “female paramour.”


4 posted on 03/11/2012 6:44:41 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

What if she were living with her sister? That’s “family” isn’t it? - but no, that would not be coverable.


5 posted on 03/11/2012 6:44:46 AM PDT by LibFreeUSA (Pick Your Poison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

Flukin’ idiot knew the benefits when she took the job. Deal with it.


6 posted on 03/11/2012 6:52:07 AM PDT by tnlibertarian (Selfishly stealing other people's witticisms for taglines since 2002.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

The rot spreads.


7 posted on 03/11/2012 6:52:37 AM PDT by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

Oh, the hugh manatee.


8 posted on 03/11/2012 6:56:18 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Maybe it IS about contraception. Read "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" decision, 1992.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GenXteacher

These people imagine they can move in and impose their views on others.


9 posted on 03/11/2012 6:56:45 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Yes, agree with your comment.
The muslims, homosexuals, atheists, socialists, et al, all want to require everyone else to accept or conform to their beliefs. There is never any consideration for the those who do not share their ‘confusion’.
10 posted on 03/11/2012 7:01:50 AM PDT by Tahoe3002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

No, because I don’t my government pretending that homosexuality is normal.


11 posted on 03/11/2012 7:02:44 AM PDT by libertylover (The problem with Obama is not that his skin is too black, it's that his ideas are too RED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

Another liberal that goes to a college knowing fully well it wont give what she wants.


12 posted on 03/11/2012 7:04:04 AM PDT by MNDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
These people imagine they can move in and impose their views on others.

Uhhh... it's because they CAN. Watch this "university" cave (as many of the faculty were waiting for just such an incident to give them cover) in the name of fairness. The local news will trumpet the decision, will interview a few professional radicals disguised as students who love it, and we'll accelerate down that slippery slope even faster...

13 posted on 03/11/2012 7:08:49 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwaet! Lar bith maest hord, sothlice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

The division of the company where I work (well, up until recently, “worked”) was recently purchased outright by a much, much larger company. Company ex would cover your significant other under their health/dental plan. The now-new employer, the big outfit, will ONLY cover your significant other IF he/she is the same sex as you.

IOW, your significant other is only covered if you’re gay. Sucks. I pointed out the discriminatory nature of this to the guy from HR while going over my formal offer letter to “come across” to the new company. He agreed. Nonetheless, it’s the reality, I knew it coming in, and I opted to take the offer....meaning separate insurance will have to be purchased.

You either live with the terms of your new employer or you don’t when you’re deciding to take an offer. This woman knew her significant other would not be covered, took the job, then demands they cover her. It just doesn’t work that way unless you’re eaten up with an entitlement mentality.


14 posted on 03/11/2012 7:12:27 AM PDT by RightOnline (I am Andrew Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

She probably wants her contraception paid for also, oh wait....


15 posted on 03/11/2012 7:18:58 AM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
What if she were living with her sister? That’s “family” isn’t it? - but no, that would not be coverable.

The lifestyle in this case is perverted, however there is something to be said for coverage because you still are PAYING for the partner.

This is why Vermont went to Civil Unions instead of "Marriage." Legally it's justified. As much as I think the life style is convoluted my intellectual honesty says Civil Unions are equitable.

16 posted on 03/11/2012 7:21:14 AM PDT by sirchtruth (Freedom is not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1

Not contraception, maybe... but sex toys. Are you and Rush Limbaugh going to say she doesn’t have the right to spend your money on her sex toys. Are you actually going to try to fight that battle?

/s


17 posted on 03/11/2012 7:23:16 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

It would be interesting to know if she was intentionally recruited as a test case.


18 posted on 03/11/2012 7:28:24 AM PDT by HogsBreath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

Your answer:

Are they married “partners”?


19 posted on 03/11/2012 7:30:03 AM PDT by Darteaus94025
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath
On a side note, since when did teachers suddenly become Educators?
20 posted on 03/11/2012 7:34:47 AM PDT by mkleesma (`Call to me, and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma
On a side note, since when did teachers suddenly become Educators?

Should be Indoctrinators.

21 posted on 03/11/2012 7:38:01 AM PDT by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: All

This is the latest trend I’ve been seeing....lib agitators moving out of their big city bastions and taking jobs either in rural settings or smaller, more Conservative areas (like Knoxville), where they quickly become aggrieved and file a lawsuit to get their way and force their atrocious lifestyles on everyone else. It’s very much like a cancer that is metastasizing in the country.


22 posted on 03/11/2012 7:45:08 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Progressives are deliberately targeting conservative states...


23 posted on 03/11/2012 7:47:57 AM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

Now this “injustice” is sure to stir up the people of Knoxville who will demand that justice be done. Knoxville, when did it turn liberal?


24 posted on 03/11/2012 7:52:15 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Mathematically, it's all over, says Mittens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkleesma

Teachers are also referring to themselves as ‘co-parents’...


25 posted on 03/11/2012 7:52:27 AM PDT by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

God given diversity is beautiful, whole and very rewarding, such as diversity in a male female family with children.

Man and women made diversity is deadly, destructive,and especially it has hi-jacked our educational systems, and our Universities!

They are saying let us make the U.S. another modern Sodom and Gomorrah.

We are making ourselves a nation of: “every man [and woman] does that which is right in their own eyes.” (Judges 21:25)

Let us not forget: “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man[and woman], but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12 and Proverbs 16:25)


26 posted on 03/11/2012 7:54:40 AM PDT by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

The lesbian law professor was offered a position by the school.

This is no surprise that she would now seek to have her position accommodated.

This is how they do it from the slut at Georgetown to this bimbo.

It wrong and its disgusting. But I bet she wins the day.


27 posted on 03/11/2012 7:56:01 AM PDT by Adder (Da bro has GOT to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

I wonder why the “partner” can’t land a job that either provides healthcare or the means to purchase it? This whole homosexual partner movement falls right into the Left’s plans to provide “free” healthcare to all by making everyone a government dependent.


28 posted on 03/11/2012 8:17:05 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

The key word here is “family”. The prof and her daughter (biologic/adopted) are a family. Of sorts. The other woman is a friend, at the end of the day.

Words mean something. Two lesbian women are not a family. They may be lots of things, but they are not a family in the sense of the word for the last several millenia. That is why the other woman has to get her own insurance.


29 posted on 03/11/2012 8:18:26 AM PDT by RedElement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)
in the name of fairness

My gold plated insurance package (with teeth and eye care)cost ~ $25k/year, 40 plus years I have paid in over ONE MILLION DOLLARS in today's dollars!

Very healthy family, I doubt we have used up two years payments!

Is that fair¿?

Do not forget the interest return on the payments!

30 posted on 03/11/2012 8:30:02 AM PDT by DUMBGRUNT (The best is the enemy of the good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

Yes, they do seem to be deliberately targeting “red” areas. Some effective strategy needs to be developed to both combat this and to do the same to their formerly safe blue areas. They push and push and push and eventually it is too expensive to defend “no” in courts and in the media. What is to be done about this? It is the Rosa Parks strategy: just purposely go to the place where the behavior is not accepted and park yourself there and then go media and courts route. For our side this means going into the Hollywood, entertainment, culturally elite areas as Breitbart was doing I think.


31 posted on 03/11/2012 8:37:27 AM PDT by Anima Mundi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

Why should MY tax dollars support something I consider to be gravely morally wrong?

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ... Thomas Jefferson

“. . . if the law indeed be concerning things that lie not within the verge of the magistrate’s authority . . . . men are not in these cases obliged by that law, against their consciences.” .... John Locke


32 posted on 03/11/2012 9:06:58 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Actually, the faculty at UT Knoxville is pretty liberal.


33 posted on 03/11/2012 9:13:59 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

So, the point of this article is what? That we must have homosexual marriage because of cases like this?????


34 posted on 03/11/2012 9:21:26 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedElement

Well, in this day and age, in the liberal worldview, two lesbian females are a family. That’s what they are pushing here. They are pushing at how unfair society, this university, and the state of Tennessee are, for not recognizing them as a married couple with all the benefits involved with marriage. Any who disagree are branded as homophobic, so that debate and discussion are shut down.

I would not be surprised in about 10-20 years, if a discussion like we’re having now would be banned as hate speech.


35 posted on 03/11/2012 9:27:17 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

This was the plan the whole time. Go somewhere that doesn’t recognize gay partners and demand coverage.


36 posted on 03/11/2012 9:52:18 AM PDT by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HogsBreath

There is another way of looking at this, which is seldom considered, because everyone assume that this is just a homosexual-rights issue.

If you allow a policy of extending the coverage to a partner of some sort, it changes the composition of the pool! The whole insurance system depends on some sort of statistical predictability.

If they do include partners, then I think that any single employee should be able to designate a partner (or maybe several) of any kind. Maybe I could designate some poor person in Africa as a partner (maybe a pen-pal). This would be a very generous thing for me to do, but would help bankrupt the insurance system.


37 posted on 03/11/2012 10:29:54 AM PDT by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian; muawiyah
UT's executive committee will consider a resolution tomorrow supporting benefits for nonmarried employees in same-sex partnerships.

Don't tell me this whole b.s. wasn't a set-up.

38 posted on 03/11/2012 12:07:47 PM PDT by TennesseeGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TennesseeGirl
Of course it was a set up.

The Board should immediately replace the President/Chancellor ~ the point being that the hiring action involved a fraudulent misrepresentation of what this puke was going to cost the school if they hired him. He didn't negotiate in good faith.

39 posted on 03/11/2012 12:14:45 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson