Posted on 02/09/2006 6:34:59 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
“University of Florida employees have to pledge that they’re having sex with their domestic partners before qualifying for benefits under a new health care plan at the university.”
That may sound like a joke to you—maybe something from the satirical website “The Onion.” But as a matter of fact, that sentence is straight from an actual news story in the Gainesville Sun.
The paper explains, “In addition to declaring financial obligations, prospective enrollees must ‘have been in a non-platonic relationship for the preceding 12 months.’” However, “[University of Florida official Kyle] Cavanaugh said he had no plans to personally enforce the sex pledge”—that’s comforting. “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.”
The more you read, the more bizarre the whole business gets. So bizarre, in fact, that the Sun’s article created an uproar in the community. The university was finally forced to remove the requirement. But the fact that they even tried it should really come as no surprise.
You see, one of the dangers of granting marriage benefits to domestic partners is how easily that privilege gets abused. How do you determine whether two people living together are really domestic partners? What if they are simply two friends who are living in the same house to get benefits? And once this kind of abuse gets started, what’s to prevent more and more people from trying it? It’s a recipe for financial disaster for the companies that are giving the benefits. And some of them are starting to realize it. Hence, the “non-platonic clause.”
But then we get to the practical side of things: How on earth are officials supposed to make sure this pledge is being kept? Hence, the non-enforcement and eventual removal of the non-platonic clause.
But it’s the height of irony. For years, social conservatives have been vilified for supposedly wanting to be “bedroom police.” But now it’s the social liberals who are in danger of becoming bedroom police—but such ineffective ones that they’re more like Keystone Kops. They tried to create rules they had no way of enforcing, about something they had no control over.
The funny thing is, there’s already a system in place to ensure that benefits go to truly committed couples who have a lifetime interest in one another’s welfare. It’s called marriage. Those who argued that it was too restrictive to give benefits only to married couples are now finding that it’s the only way that really works.
It’s just more evidence that the Christian view of love and marriage makes sense on every level, including the practical. You can set marriage apart and honor it as an institution created by God for the benefit of couples, children, and society. Or you can call it just one of many equivalent living arrangements—and end up policing people’s bedrooms. Reality has a way of reinforcing the Christian worldview, whether we like it or not. And it makes all our wonderful utopian schemes look really silly.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Not to be confused with the Dream Police.
This wouldn't be an issue if contracts simply allowed an employee to designate an "adult dependent," irrespective of relationship, and pay for the person's insurance coverage for the duration of the coverage period.
LOL! Sounds like a Bob and Doug McKenzie scheme. Truth is at least as funny as fiction.
In the words of Warner Wolf...."Lets go to the videotape.."
"Have you consummated this roomateship?"
Hmmm...perhaps this will spark a new way for college guys to try and get laid.
"Come on...it will be worth it. You can get on my health insurance!"
LOL...
Domestic partners often appear to be equally obtuse.
To exclude FAKE homosexuals?
LOL!
It illustrates the fact that the symbolism of the agenda is more important than the practical outcome.
I'd like to see all "benefits" detached from employers completely, but that's a different rant :-).
Businesses may just have to cancel insurance for all and leave people to buy what they need.
I think a Health Savings Account for everyone would be a great idea. Maybe then we would start to take responsibility for our own health.
Government Official: "Which one of you is the girl?"
Two guys point at each other: "He is!"
Does this apply to a couple of roommates from the philosophy department just so long as they stick to discussing Aristotle, Nietzsche and Kant. Maybe they could publicly burn their copy of The Republic to prove they are non-Platonic.
It seems like so many of these people have never heard of "power of attorney" before. What do they think single people who have little in the way of family do to ensure someone can make medical decisions for them, inherit their property, and the like? Are the gay-marriage advocates even aware of this, or is it - once again - just all about them?
Frankly I think the people agitating for gay marriage really don't care much about simple power of attorney rights since those are already available to people, regardless of sexual preference. Instead it's about forcing an unwilling society to accept and celebrate gay relationshps. It's about making a statement.
Keep government out of the bedroom. Oh well, the libs lied to us again. Now they want to know what's going on in our bedrooms to get benefits. Add this onto anti-smoking, anti-fat food policies, etc. The libs are not on the side of personal freedom.
How can they possibly tell if the pair is lying. This Is A Joke.
Will BJs "count"? (vague reference to Bubba)
I wonder if they plan on subjecting their 70 yo emeritus professors to this requirement. Or their physically handicapped employees. Say, lawyers, do you smell blood in the water?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.