If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Baltimore Sun)   Maryland decides unmarried same-sex partners no longer qualify for spousal benefits, since there's no longer anything stopping them from getting married   (baltimoresun.com) divider line 64
    More: Interesting, Maryland, domestic partners, same-sex couples, workplace discrimination, Society for Human Resource Management, same-sex marriages, Equality Maryland, lesbian rights  
•       •       •

1322 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 May 2013 at 9:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-03 02:01:39 AM
Well, there are going to be some awkward conversations in Maryland for the rest of this year.
 
2013-05-03 02:08:10 AM
"For people whose professional careers require them to move to more conservative states, she said, getting married under Maryland law could be risky. "


No, dumbass, what's risky is moving to Kansas!


So, gays want to have their cake and eat it. No.
 
2013-05-03 03:30:07 AM
I'm a gay man..and had benifites for health ins from my partner of 26 years  because his company offered it and it was a better plan than nothing.


I don't have a problem with this. If you want equal rights and then get married...I would in a heartbeat. if that option was open for me and my partner..and it would protect both me and him for property rights etc.


The thing is---what other problems in the law would conflict DOMA and fed regs?
For example a 'domestic' not federal married  partner or a 'same sex' partner that's under insurance from their partner must claim that insurance portion as 'income' for the coverage on IRS forms as 'income'. That's just one of the thousands of things we have now for not having same sex 'marriages' recognized in federal and nation wide.
 
2013-05-03 09:45:27 AM
Imokwiththis.jpg
 
2013-05-03 09:47:20 AM
I find it interesting that "marry" and "Maryland" have the same etymological root.
 
2013-05-03 09:58:28 AM

Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

 
2013-05-03 09:58:37 AM
FTA: State workers who currently have their domestic partners covered have been told they will lose that eligibility as of next Jan. 1 - unless, Guillory said, they marry.

i471.photobucket.com

Yeah, sorry; I don't find either the difficulty of getting a divorce or the hazard of having to admit you're married to bigots in other states to be particularly compelling arguments for Maryland continuing the policy. YMMV, GLWT.
 
2013-05-03 09:59:40 AM

Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg


THIS
 
2013-05-03 10:00:18 AM

BarkingUnicorn: So, gays want to have their cake and eat it. No.


Yup.  I'm for marriage  equality.  And since Maryland probably doesn't give spousal benefits for unmarried hetero couples, there's no reason they should offer that same benefit to unmarried gay couples,  provided that the gay couples are allowed to marry.

But since Maryland now allows gay couples to marry, it's time for them to play by the same rules as everybody else----which is exactly how it should be.  I can't stress the importance of that boldedlast point enough, though.
 
2013-05-03 10:06:13 AM
Totally OK with this.  The whole "domestic partnership" thing is a workaround to the fact that gay people couldn't get married; now that they can in some states, those states should no longer feel obligated to treat unmarried partners the same.
 
2013-05-03 10:07:50 AM

mrshowrules: I find it interesting that "marry" and "Maryland" have the same etymological root.


"Marry" comes from the Latin  maritus (husband).

"Maryland" is named for either the wife of Charles I or the mother of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland).  Their name is from the Hebrew Miryam.
 
2013-05-03 10:08:46 AM
Would that count as common-law marriage?
 
2013-05-03 10:09:07 AM

Corvus: Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

THIS


Agreed.  Maybe a longer phase-out period is appropriate, perhaps.
 
2013-05-03 10:10:19 AM
That's fair. Add me to the "I'm OK with this" crowd.
 
2013-05-03 10:11:25 AM

Arkanaut: Would that count as common-law marriage?


FTFA: an unmarried heterosexual partner doesn't have the same right.

It's the same rule for everyone. I'm ok with this.
 
2013-05-03 10:13:39 AM

Arkanaut: Would that count as common-law marriage?


Maryland doesn't recognize common-law marriage.
 
2013-05-03 10:14:21 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

THIS

Agreed.  Maybe a longer phase-out period is appropriate, perhaps.


Possibly a longer phase out period, but I agree that the door to domestic partner coverage needs to be closed to prevent influx into a retiring system. Another year would probably be best, so it would end Jan 1, 2015, because even civil weddings take some mental preparation and discussion. An extension longer than that though seems excessive, since you ultimately do want people moving into one category or the other (married vs. unmarried) and to do it with some level of expediency.
 
2013-05-03 10:16:34 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

THIS

Agreed.  Maybe a longer phase-out period is appropriate, perhaps.


Or the state could automatically convert their domestic partnerships into legal marriages. Several states have already done that (Connecticut, New Hampshire) or plan to do that in the near future (Rhode Island, Washington).
 
2013-05-03 10:18:17 AM

optikeye: I'm a gay man..and had benifites for health ins from my partner of 26 years  because his company offered it and it was a better plan than nothing.


I don't have a problem with this. If you want equal rights and then get married...I would in a heartbeat. if that option was open for me and my partner..and it would protect both me and him for property rights etc.


The thing is---what other problems in the law would conflict DOMA and fed regs?
For example a 'domestic' not federal married  partner or a 'same sex' partner that's under insurance from their partner must claim that insurance portion as 'income' for the coverage on IRS forms as 'income'. That's just one of the thousands of things we have now for not having same sex 'marriages' recognized in federal and nation wide.


That's the problem I have presently.  Even if we could get married in the state we live in - its a legal nightmare at the federal level until DOMA gets figured out.
 
2013-05-03 10:28:55 AM

Nhaima: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

THIS

Agreed.  Maybe a longer phase-out period is appropriate, perhaps.

Possibly a longer phase out period, but I agree that the door to domestic partner coverage needs to be closed to prevent influx into a retiring system. Another year would probably be best, so it would end Jan 1, 2015, because even civil weddings take some mental preparation and discussion. An extension longer than that though seems excessive, since you ultimately do want people moving into one category or the other (married vs. unmarried) and to do it with some level of expediency.


Or: allow existing arrangements to continue through 2014, to give them a reasonable chance to make arrangements, but don't allow any new partnerships to join the system, starting immediately.
 
2013-05-03 10:34:52 AM

gingerjet: optikeye: I'm a gay man..and had benifites for health ins from my partner of 26 years  because his company offered it and it was a better plan than nothing.


I don't have a problem with this. If you want equal rights and then get married...I would in a heartbeat. if that option was open for me and my partner..and it would protect both me and him for property rights etc.


The thing is---what other problems in the law would conflict DOMA and fed regs?
For example a 'domestic' not federal married  partner or a 'same sex' partner that's under insurance from their partner must claim that insurance portion as 'income' for the coverage on IRS forms as 'income'. That's just one of the thousands of things we have now for not having same sex 'marriages' recognized in federal and nation wide.

That's the problem I have presently.  Even if we could get married in the state we live in - its a legal nightmare at the federal level until DOMA gets figured out.


Well, the article and decision involves the state of Maryland only.  They can't be held responsible for gays getting shiatted upon at a federal level.
 
2013-05-03 10:35:35 AM

mrshowrules: I find it interesting that "marry" and "Maryland" have the same etymological root.


umm...
 
2013-05-03 10:38:38 AM

Nhaima: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

THIS

Agreed.  Maybe a longer phase-out period is appropriate, perhaps.

Possibly a longer phase out period, but I agree that the door to domestic partner coverage needs to be closed to prevent influx into a retiring system. Another year would probably be best, so it would end Jan 1, 2015, because even civil weddings take some mental preparation and discussion. An extension longer than that though seems excessive, since you ultimately do want people moving into one category or the other (married vs. unmarried) and to do it with some level of expediency.


I don't think they'd need a longer phase-out.  The domestic partner status was created as a workaround for gay couples who could not get married.  Conceivably, the only people who took advantage of it were couples who, if they had been allowed, would have gotten married - who had already done the courtship, falling in love, and proposal stages.  Seven months doesn't seem to me to be too short of an engagement period.
 
2013-05-03 10:39:11 AM
They should extend the benefits to unmarried heterosexuals as well.

The unmarried people are doing the same jobs married people are. It isn't the government's place to say one relationship is more worthy than another.
 
2013-05-03 10:41:04 AM
McIntosh, who married earlier this year under the new law, said she doubts many same-sex couples in domestic partnerships will rush to the courthouse just because of the policy change. "Marrying somebody for their health insurance is a little bit of the wrong motivation," she said.

Lots of opposite-sex couples marry for reasons other than love, including being able to cover somebody under their health insurance. Who is to say that that is a wrong motivation?
 
2013-05-03 10:41:56 AM

Krieghund: They should extend the benefits to unmarried heterosexuals as well.

The unmarried people are doing the same jobs married people are. It isn't the government's place to say one relationship is more worthy than another.


[OhGeezNotThisshiatAgain.jpg]...
 
2013-05-03 10:45:35 AM

quokka70: mrshowrules: I find it interesting that "marry" and "Maryland" have the same etymological root.

"Marry" comes from the Latin  maritus (husband).

"Maryland" is named for either the wife of Charles I or the mother of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland).  Their name is from the Hebrew Miryam.


I thought "marry" also traced back to the the proper name "Mary" but I see I am mistaken.
 
2013-05-03 10:46:54 AM
Is this supposed to be controversial?

I mean, yeah, it further illuminates problems with other states and DOMA and such, but them's the breaks.
 
2013-05-03 10:47:18 AM

czetie: Nhaima: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

THIS

Agreed.  Maybe a longer phase-out period is appropriate, perhaps.

Possibly a longer phase out period, but I agree that the door to domestic partner coverage needs to be closed to prevent influx into a retiring system. Another year would probably be best, so it would end Jan 1, 2015, because even civil weddings take some mental preparation and discussion. An extension longer than that though seems excessive, since you ultimately do want people moving into one category or the other (married vs. unmarried) and to do it with some level of expediency.

Or: allow existing arrangements to continue through 2014, to give them a reasonable chance to make arrangements, but don't allow any new partnerships to join the system, starting immediately.


The impression I got from the article is that your statement is the current way of things.

Karac: Nhaima: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

THIS

Agreed.  Maybe a longer phase-out period is appropriate, perhaps.

Possibly a longer phase out period, but I agree that the door to domestic partner coverage needs to be closed to prevent influx into a retiring system. Another year would probably be best, so it would end Jan 1, 2015, because even civil weddings take some mental preparation and discussion. An extension longer than that though seems excessive, since you ultimately do want people moving into one category or the other (married vs. unmarried) and to do it with some level of expediency.

I don't think they'd need a longer phase-out.  The domestic partner status was created as a workaround for gay couples who could not get married.  Conceivably, the only people who took advantage of it were couples who, if they had been allowed, would have gotten married - who had already done the courtship, falling in love, and proposal stages.  Seven months doesn't seem to me to be too short of an engagement period.


I agree with your premise in general, but I don't think it is that simple. My main thought for the extra time would be for the state to ensure that it had time to craft the necessary responses to  United States v. Windsor and  Hollingsworth v. Perry, in case those decisions are odd ones. Furthermore since the state is unilaterally changing the status of the domestic partnership, I think it can afford the extra leniency of enforcing the new policy the first full tax year after the decision since we are already 5 months into the current one.
 
2013-05-03 10:53:28 AM

czetie: Nhaima: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Babwa Wawa: Imokwiththis.jpg

THIS

Agreed.  Maybe a longer phase-out period is appropriate, perhaps.

Possibly a longer phase out period, but I agree that the door to domestic partner coverage needs to be closed to prevent influx into a retiring system. Another year would probably be best, so it would end Jan 1, 2015, because even civil weddings take some mental preparation and discussion. An extension longer than that though seems excessive, since you ultimately do want people moving into one category or the other (married vs. unmarried) and to do it with some level of expediency.

Or: allow existing arrangements to continue through 2014, to give them a reasonable chance to make arrangements, but don't allow any new partnerships to join the system, starting immediately.


Agree with this. And if you can't plan a wedding in that length of time, you don't have to. You can just go down to the courthouse, make it legal, and have the party on another day. Only objections I'd have is if they'd suffer any loss of rights by doing so (like federally).

But yeah, otherwise it's unfair to maintain since hetero couples can't enjoy the same. Trust me, we get the whole equal rights thing. ;)
 
2013-05-03 11:02:36 AM
So the State of Maryland is now FORCING people to get gay married.  Foxnews told you all this would happen!!!
 
2013-05-03 11:06:39 AM

Nhaima: I agree with your premise in general, but I don't think it is that simple. My main thought for the extra time would be for the state to ensure that it had time to craft the necessary responses to United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, in case those decisions are odd ones. Furthermore since the state is unilaterally changing the status of the domestic partnership, I think it can afford the extra leniency of enforcing the new policy the first full tax year after the decision since we are already 5 months into the current one.


Hollingsworth involved gay marriage in California.  Windsor involves DOMA.  Neither of those cases dealt specifically with Maryland law; and any decision from either of them would effect gay domestic partners and gay spouses in Maryland exactly the same.  As for the 'full tax year' part - the article states that that current partnerships are still valid until January 1st.

A gay 'domestic partner' couple in Maryland last year would have gotten shiatted upon at a federal level by DOMA.  A gay 'married' couple next year, if DOMA still stands, will get the exact same level of shiat.
 
2013-05-03 11:07:03 AM

theknuckler_33: Arkanaut: Would that count as common-law marriage?

FTFA: an unmarried heterosexual partner doesn't have the same right.

It's the same rule for everyone. I'm ok with this.


THIS

THAT

WIFFLE-BALL BAT
 
2013-05-03 11:13:57 AM
Harvard University did this a few years ago.
 
2013-05-03 11:22:32 AM

Karac: Nhaima: I agree with your premise in general, but I don't think it is that simple. My main thought for the extra time would be for the state to ensure that it had time to craft the necessary responses to United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, in case those decisions are odd ones. Furthermore since the state is unilaterally changing the status of the domestic partnership, I think it can afford the extra leniency of enforcing the new policy the first full tax year after the decision since we are already 5 months into the current one.

Hollingsworth involved gay marriage in California.  Windsor involves DOMA.  Neither of those cases dealt specifically with Maryland law; and any decision from either of them would effect gay domestic partners and gay spouses in Maryland exactly the same.  As for the 'full tax year' part - the article states that that current partnerships are still valid until January 1st.

A gay 'domestic partner' couple in Maryland last year would have gotten shiatted upon at a federal level by DOMA.  A gay 'married' couple next year, if DOMA still stands, will get the exact same level of shiat.


It seems like you are saying that neither case could in any way affect the scope of Maryland marriages, either in how the state will be expected to execute them or how it will affect parties to the marriage outside of the state? I agree that neither is likely to and I expect them to be decided on standing rather than on merits, but the possibility is there and so I think it would have been equally reasonable for a longer transition time so that they might better understand the ramifications of what they were entering into. Until those decisions are handed down, it is a very real possibility that something unexpected could happen so it would seem that time is their ally within what they are permitted.
 
2013-05-03 11:29:29 AM
EXACTLY.  If you're married, you're married.  If you're not married, you're room-mates.

One of the under-reported selling points of legalizing same-sex partner marriages is that it allows you to eliminate that abomination of "domestic partnerships" in which people who aren't interested enough to make even the simplest legal obligation to each other (marriage - which takes almost zero effort) somehow are treated as if they are a legally recognized partnership.
 
2013-05-03 11:32:37 AM
The timeframe seems draconian, but I'm in 100% in principle.
 
2013-05-03 11:33:26 AM

Serious Black: McIntosh, who married earlier this year under the new law, said she doubts many same-sex couples in domestic partnerships will rush to the courthouse just because of the policy change. "Marrying somebody for their health insurance is a little bit of the wrong motivation," she said.

Lots of opposite-sex couples marry for reasons other than love, including being able to cover somebody under their health insurance. Who is to say that that is a wrong motivation?


My wife and I got married for insurance reasons. We were already engaged and still had the ceremony for the family at a later date, but we got married on our lunch break by a judge I worked for at the time. Turned out to be a good move, since she had to make an er visit a couple of months later.
 
2013-05-03 11:40:05 AM
I'm gay.

I say either remove the domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples, or offer it to the heterosexual couples. Some will say you cannot give a right and then revoke it (a la prop 8), however, since you are replacing a right with a more equal, same-serving alternative, it probably won't hold the same weight. It is no longer separate-but-equal, but fully equal (at least on the state level).
 
2013-05-03 11:47:53 AM

BarkingUnicorn: "For people whose professional careers require them to move to more conservative states, she said, getting married under Maryland law could be risky. "


No, dumbass, what's risky is moving to Kansas!


So, gays want to have their cake and eat it. No.


I'm...not usually on your side, but this is the smartest move possible for O'Malley.  Hell, it's the only legal move.  Anyone who doesn't like this is one of those "takers" that teabaggers complain about.  And this time, they'd be right.  You want those protections that were given to you in lieu of actual marriage?  Well, marriage is now magically open to you.  You can get those now, as part of that marriage you've always wanted.  Seems like you guys got a pretty sweet deal.

/NOT here to debate whether marriage is good or not, so fark off, you "singles' rights" shiatdickers.

abb3w: FTA: State workers who currently have their domestic partners covered have been told they will lose that eligibility as of next Jan. 1 - unless, Guillory said, they marry.

[i471.photobucket.com image 379x214]
Yeah, sorry; I don't find either the difficulty of getting a divorce or the hazard of having to admit you're married to bigots in other states to be particularly compelling arguments for Maryland continuing the policy. YMMV, GLWT.


I'd be more inclined to agree with you if most of those states didn't say that said marriage wasn't.
 
2013-05-03 12:17:17 PM

Nhaima: The impression I got from the article is that your statement is the current way of things.


Wait, people are reading the articles before commenting? When did that start?

Lady Indica: But yeah, otherwise it's unfair to maintain since hetero couples can't enjoy the same. Trust me, we get the whole equal rights thing. ;)


I used to live in California and work for Oracle, and our benefits plan allowed both straight and gay partners to be covered. Both were covered by the same rules, e.g. you could change your designated partner only once in a calendar year. It was another way of getting to equal coverage. I don't recall if that was a California thing or just an Oracle thing.
 
2013-05-03 12:30:03 PM
Kind of refreshing to pick up a politics tab article and see a long thead of reasonable responses.

Add me to the "I'm okay with this" list.
 
2013-05-03 12:31:12 PM

czetie: Nhaima: The impression I got from the article is that your statement is the current way of things.

Wait, people are reading the articles before commenting? When did that start?


As far as personal anecdotes go, since I started spending time on Fark. Where others are concerned, I feel like an uncertainty principle would be your best bet to figure the answer out.
 
2013-05-03 12:49:18 PM

draypresct: Kind of refreshing to pick up a politics tab article and see a long thead of reasonable responses.

Add me to the "I'm okay with this" list.


heh it's only because this is an eminently reasonable proposal
 
2013-05-03 12:49:28 PM

czetie: Nhaima: The impression I got from the article is that your statement is the current way of things.

Wait, people are reading the articles before commenting? When did that start?


Well, consider who is posting in this thread. We've only had one trollbag pop in with his opinion that government is discriminating against the unmarried, so I'd say we have a pretty high information content ratio going on.
 
2013-05-03 01:06:30 PM
I'm gay and I'm ok with this.  I would probably give the couples involved a full year to comply though (for wedding planning, etc.)
 
2013-05-03 01:27:26 PM
Would a couple thats been together for more than 7 years get "Grandfathered" in?
 
2013-05-03 01:41:28 PM
Several cities in my home state of Massachusetts did this, and racked up some pretty big savings. They had previously had partnership benefits for all of the city workers (gay, straight, both, inbetween, etc.). Once gays could get married, they were able to require everyone to be married to get the benefits and save a ton of money. That's one of my favorite things to point out to conservatives -- SMALLER government, LOWER taxes resulted!
 
2013-05-03 02:00:07 PM

aedude01: I'm gay and I'm ok with this.  I would probably give the couples involved a full year to comply though (for wedding planning, etc.)


That's what they're being given. Same-sex couples were allowed to get married starting on January 1, 2013, and Governor O'Malley has said benefits for people in domestic partnerships will end January 1, 2014. I think it may have just been simpler to tell people who are in domestic partnerships that they will be converted to marriages next year; that's the tack most states have taken up to now.
 
2013-05-03 02:18:18 PM
This happened in Connecticut when same sex marriage was legalized.   It seems fair to me.  A friend of ours ( a retired state employee) married her partner of 20+ years because of it.  She was happy that it gave her the push to "make it legal".
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report