Cities dropping partner benefits for unmarried same sex couples (legal, companies, rating)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just read an article in my local paper that the City council will vote to end the extension of benefits to same sex unmarried couples. Same sex couples wanting to cover a partner will have to marry in order to do so. The city says since they don't offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it would be inequitable to continue to offer this benefit to same sex couples. I think we'll see more and more municipalities and companies making this change now that same sex marriage is legal in the entire country.
Just read an article in my local paper that the City council will vote to end the extension of benefits to same sex unmarried couples. Same sex couples wanting to cover a partner will have to marry in order to do so. The city says since they don't offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it would be inequitable to continue to offer this benefit to same sex couples. I think we'll see more and more municipalities and companies making this change now that same sex marriage is legal in the entire country.
Just read an article in my local paper that the City council will vote to end the extension of benefits to same sex unmarried couples. Same sex couples wanting to cover a partner will have to marry in order to do so. The city says since they don't offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it would be inequitable to continue to offer this benefit to same sex couples. I think we'll see more and more municipalities and companies making this change now that same sex marriage is legal in the entire country.
Seems odd that your city offered such benefits to unmarried couples in the first place. They really offered 'benefits' to unmarried gay couples, but not unmarried heterosexual couples?
Just read an article in my local paper that the City council will vote to end the extension of benefits to same sex unmarried couples. Same sex couples wanting to cover a partner will have to marry in order to do so. The city says since they don't offer benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it would be inequitable to continue to offer this benefit to same sex couples. I think we'll see more and more municipalities and companies making this change now that same sex marriage is legal in the entire country.
This is good. Let homosexuals have to get married and then go through divorce when they tire of their "partner" just like the rest of us. No more encounters in a bathroom stall equalling a "relationship".
Seems odd that your city offered such benefits to unmarried couples in the first place. They really offered 'benefits' to unmarried gay couples, but not unmarried heterosexual couples?
Correct. Currently they offered benefits to married heterosexual couples and benefits to unmarried same sex couples. No benefits were offered to unmarried heterosexual couples since they had the option to legally marry. Now that same sex couples have the same option, the city is ending all benefits for unmarried partners.
My company just announced the same change. It'll go into effect in 1/1/16 so people have some time to consider if they want to marry or find other coverage. I know there are companies that offer unmarried partner benefits regardless of the make up of the couple. I would assume they would continue offering that benefit.
Since same sex couples can now get married, it's only fair that we all play by the same rules.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.