Previous   Next

How do you feel about offering benefits to domestic partners?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on March 2, 2008

Browse the archives

Photo of Simon Skinner

“I think they should define what a domestic partner is and have a good length for how long they’ve been together, maybe a three-year limit.”

Photo of Meredith Moore

“An important part about equality is first opening up people’s minds and improving everyone’s quality of life. Job benefits are part of that. I would hate to see people turn down jobs at Kansas University because we were perceived as inconsiderate.”

Photo of Ivan Hart

“I think homosexual couples should be married. I don’t even like the name domestic partnership. I think it’s lame. Marriage between people is marriage.”

Photo of Dawn Munger

“I think if they allow domestic partnership here, you should probably go ahead and allow benefits. I think they should treat it like a marriage.”


mick 10 years, 1 month ago

There is a hidden agenda. If you think it will stop with a "domestic registry" you are a fool.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 10 years, 1 month ago

Of course, there is a hidden agenda. We want to get more people on health insurance. Roommates might claim to be domestic, so the one with no insurance can get some. God forbid, we make insurance available to people. If they want insurance, why don't they give up their cars or quit eating, then they could pay for it themselves, instead of paying for it through their partners workplace. It's all a conspiracy theory. Some people just don't deserve health insurance, right, micky? If they don't want to get a marriage certificate, they are immoral and don't deserve to have health insurance. Oh yeah, some domestic partners aren't allowed to get a marriage license. Oh, those are the people you don't want to have the same privileges as you. Let them eat dirt.

toefungus 10 years, 1 month ago

Stupid Idea, unless the benefit is paid for 100% by the recipient. Otherwise, an entire welfare system will emerge funded entirely by business.

beatrice 10 years, 1 month ago

Toe, is it a stupid idea to provide benefits for heterosexual couples also? Must a couple be legally married in order to get benefits? What about those who aren't allowed to marry?

To think that anyone would want to deny another of health benefits is beyond me. But then, it is beyond me why my marriage is supposedly in jeopardy because of the relationships of others. What is next, my car is going to break down because my neighbor had a flat tire?

To deny civil unions AND same-sex marriage is to deny the reality of who people are. That wanting to deny things like health benefits for others is coming from people who call themselves Christ-like is mindboggling. To justify a dislike of another's lifestyle based on a couple of passages found in an old, thick book full of ancient Middle-Eastern prejudices is exactly the type of mindset that brings us Islamic extremism today.

Mick, would you please describe how giving one partner benefits because he/she has the legal right to wed while denying benefits to another because he/she can't legally wed isn't based on an agenda?

jonas 10 years, 1 month ago

Fine by me.

"Hidden agenda"!! Kyahahaha. It's pretty open, from my point of view.

H_Lecter 10 years, 1 month ago

Does it matter if we're already brother and sister?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 10 years, 1 month ago

So, it's welfare that my single insurance is paid for by my company, and I can put my family on that insurance for a discounted cost? I thought I was working for those benefits. Toefungus, you have a low image of workers. I hope you don't own your own business; I wouldn't want to work for you.

jonas 10 years, 1 month ago

Man, there are five other living things in this house and yet I'm the only one currently awake.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 10 years, 1 month ago

do it all the time... with what little I have... think we all should...

Charity loves company!~)

Brian Green 10 years, 1 month ago

So where do we stop? Your sister, brother, other random roommate needs health insurance so they move in to take up your plan. Health insurance is a huge expense for employers but we are so caught up here on feeling disadvantaged, go get a job at a place that has benefits yourself just like the rest of the working class has to. It is expensive as I pay for 4 in my family and it is a huge weight but I do it. The next post will say you should be free to work where you want and use whosever benefits you want. I say this is America and we are free to work for a place or leave it for something better. If you don't like capitalism find a place where there is socialist medicine, otherwise stop feeling entitled.

Richard Heckler 10 years, 1 month ago

"How do you feel about offering benefits to domestic partners?" There is no legitimate reason not to offer medical care. Someone is paying for it so what's the deal?

National Health Insurance would erase this situation cuz it would eliminate discrimination and all humans would receive the same level of care. Why should health care be treated like some retail object on a shelf in the business district?

Why National Health Insurance? Eliminates a variety of discriminatory practices We all pay for identical healthcare Provides extraordinary leverage against suppliers Protects families and business alike from being gouged by the healthcare industry Treatment for serious illness such as cancer will not be cut off because a patient has reached the point insurance companies will pay no more:happens everyday 60% of healthcare today is paid with tax dollars so why not 100% that covers all who need treatment. Citizens will not be forced to lose all of their assets or file bankruptcy due to serious illness as does happen somewhere everyday as we speak Eliminates healthcare dollars going into special interest campaign cookie jars which is ONE HUGE PROBLEM Eliminates healthcare dollars from financing golden parachutes Veterans receive care immediately for whatever symptoms war has imposed on their physical or mental health. No more waiting on the Dept. of Defense National Healthcare eliminates 314 different policies thus eliminating tons of wasteful administrative costs. That money could be included towards 100% coverage. It is estimated todays administrative costs runs at 33%

rtwngr 10 years, 1 month ago

Health insurance is not an entitlement!!! National health insurance is not insurance at all. It is welfare. It would be administered by the government. It would offer nothing more for the poor than current agencies and facilities now offer. It would decrease the quality of healthcare for the general population because you remove it from the free market. Merrill is gravely mistaken.

ksdivakat 10 years, 1 month ago

I would be curious to talk with some of the people who already registered when it came out and ask them what a difference it has made for them.

preebo 10 years, 1 month ago

Why not, California, New York, and Florida view domestic partnerships as legally viable (i.e. common law marriage). While they are still informal in nature they are considered legal. Shouldn't Kansas?

beawolf 10 years, 1 month ago


The US spends twice as much per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world (over $7,000) and still have over 50 million uninsured citizens. Needless bureaucracy (primarily marketing and billing) consumes over 30% of health insurance premiums.

"It would decrease the quality of healthcare for the general population because you remove it from the free market." .... Competition has not held down costs nor provided better coverage. The quality of health care is not the issue, it's the cost.

Jason Bowers-Chaika 10 years, 1 month ago

Domestic partner registries (DPR's) do not offer any legal rights. They are not marriage. They are not limited to gay couples. Blood relatives are excluded in Lawrence's DPR. DPR's help small and medium sized business that often do not have the HR department resources to verify partnerships.


63% of Kansans "think cities should be able to establish domestic partner registries if they choose."

At least 65 US cities have DMR's and 5 states have DMR's.

270 of fortune 500 companies voluntarily offer domestic partner benefits.

Domestic partnership benefits are a right of business to offer their employees in order to attract and retain employees.

DPR's are an issue that is the right of local municipalities often referred to as "home rule".

kansas778 10 years, 1 month ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says:

traditional free-market theory would dictate that the demand would be higher in areas where the supply is lower,

Incorrect. The law of supply and demand dictates the phenomenon of Induced Demand: demand is higher where supply is higher, not where supply is lower.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 10 years, 1 month ago

So, we don't want National Health Care, and we don't want anyone to be added to a family plan (by the way, few companies pay for this. They give employees group rates) unless they have a marriage certificate. The insurance money would get the same money, whether someone was married or not. And then some people have been denied the right to marry. I thought the more people that are in a group plan, the better it was for insurance companies, because they could spread the costs and risks. But don't make the group bigger. Being able to add people to your family plan would be using the free market, but then some of you are against this. So, some people here just don't want others to have health insurance. Also, brianjay1, there are fewer and fewer employees offering health insurance, especially for the working class. I suspect that you are really middle to upper middle class and have an education that allows you to find jobs that offer insurance. You are probably clueless what those people who wait on you in the restaurant, mow your yard, and change your oil go through. Of course, if they got an education and changed their jobs, who would do their jobs? Why should they go without insurance just because they do manual labor? Do you consider them chattel? Would you support requiring all employees to offer group insurance?

jonas 10 years, 1 month ago

"traditional free-market theory would dictate that the demand would be higher in areas where the supply is lower"

I don't think this is correct. According to traditional free-market theory, demand is a function separate from the supply, and the differences in supply would lead to different prices for the services in question. I haven't read much on Induced Demand, but it would seem to work for certain types of services and behaviors, such as voluntary items like above-mentioned CT scans. At any rate, an area where supply is lower would not force demand higher, it just means a discrepency in the amount offered and the amount desired. If supply is lower than demand, then the price goes up. At least according to tradition market theory.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.