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

To: All

The ORIGINAL reason argued for non-married but living together benefits was that they might produce children. It was seen as a way of supporting the concept that a man and woman might produce a child in need of benefits and then the fathers/mothers benifits could be used to that end. (people save the one example, this is about promoting a general umbrella policy regarding production and protection of children.)

It must be this university has a HUGE problem with benefits fraud. This is what happens when the policy is to reward recreational sex.


91 posted on 01/23/2006 10:37:51 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: longtermmemmory
The ORIGINAL reason argued for non-married but living together benefits was that they might produce children.

Maybe in some instances. In this case, and many others, I get the impression that they had to include hetrosexuals in order to avoid discrimination lawsuits when they included homosexual "partners".

So instead they are getting this "invasion of privacy" thing, as if just applying for the "cohabitation" health insurance wasn't pretty much changing "private" to "not so private" in the first place.

119 posted on 01/23/2006 8:59:34 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

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