Howdy, partner. :o)
I'd be interested in knowing how they'd verify this.
"Drop 'em, get 'em out"
I predicted this like 15 or 20 years ago when people first started grumbling about benefits for same sex "partners". It's the only logical outcome. Now the next step is for long time heterosexual roomates to apply for benefits, make it obvious that they're heterosexual and then challenge the the University to prove that they're NOT having sex. When they investigate, sue the pants off them for not applying the same standards to married people and gay partnerships. If they're going to investigate one, they're going to have to investigate everyone.
The "old" way, married men and women, was the most defensible policy legally.
Is the pledge required if the partners are legally married? I know lots of married people that might not be able to qualify if it is. Wouldn't that be ironic. Married people not eligible for "partner" benefits, while those just shacked up are?
Is there a threshold for frequency? If the frequency of sex drops off too much, do you lose your benefits?
I see an interesting new scheme for college students to get laid developing at UF...
LOL! More (il)logical fallout from an illogical principle.
What happens if you have more than one "partner".
I can foresee a group of guys or girls who graduate from college and end up rooming together. First one who gets a job w/insurance claims the rest as "partners" and gets health insurance in return for beer.
UF is crossing the line here.
The subject of partners having/not having sex is not black and white.
Um....What if they want to get the kids covered? Or is that next?
What will be the impact of legalizing same sex marriage on the nation's Socialist Security system?
For every gay couple that looses one of it's partners to death - the survivor would be able to claim the benefits just as one's wife/children would.
Wouldn't this instantly balloon the demands on an already heading-for-a-train-wreck Ponzi scheme, that has, and would continue to serve as the reelection slush fund of the democRATS that foisted it upon Americans in the first place?
No wonder Dems are for it - it further increases their power to continue buying votes with redistribution.
But there followed a slippery slope driven primarily by liberalism's fetish with nondiscrimination and we have now arrived at 100% absurdity. People feel no compunction about signing a piece of paper saying they are domestic partners to grab a few bucks.
Takes more than a hat to make a cowboy.
Cavanaugh said he had no plans to personally enforce the sex pledge. The "non-platonic" clause is "increasingly standard" in domestic partnership plans, Cavanaugh said. The clause is one of several methods used to legally ensure that an employer is only obligated to cover employees in a committed relationship, not longtime roommates.
So what's your answer then, Mr. Cavanaugh? Are you going to police it?
Does oral sex qualify? Can I get benefits for my sheep?
Gee, how nice of them to cut out 'abuse' by, for instance, faculty and staff who have a parent who is a farmer and want to get him or her benefits by declaring them and their parent to be domestic partners.
Sheesh!
They just ruined the best argument for recognizing domestic partnerships: that it's about household members sharing benefits, not about sex partner sharing benefits.
Some U of F administrator must have been watching the cartoon series "Drawn Together" recently (and if you'd rather not know what Xander and Spanky Ham were up to, don't ask).