My Company is making new rules about 'domestic partners'


#1

I would like some advice. We just received our annual health options brochure and forms from the company I work for, and the big change discussed was that now the company is providing benefits including health insurance for ‘domestic partners’. The reasoning given is that our company wants to find and retain top talent, and other companies are starting to provide benefits to ‘domestic partners’ , and if we don’t do it we won’t be competitive. The company defines a ‘domestic partner’ basically as someone who lives with you and is not your spouse.

So, do you have any thoughts on appropriate action for a person who believes in the Catholic view as marriage being a sacrament and a union between a man and a woman?

Thank you.


#2

I don’t have an answer here. I can only offer some incomplete thoughts that hopefully will help someone in considering this.

I think that there are two issues here:

  1. The general atmosphere of the Company as expressed in its view on the meaning of marriage.

  2. The narrower issue of what benefits the company gives to which employees.

A company’s moral attitude is a factor in ones employment. However, one cannot find the perfect job and must balance the faults of those available. One must, by any menas not directly sinful, support ones family.

As to what benfits the company gives another employee, I don’t think that is my concern. A complaint might fall in the category of the workers hired at the first hour complaining about the pay of those hired at the eleventh hour. that is really between the company and them.

Again - I am posing these as thoughts for consideration; not as laws to be followed.


#3

Your course of action is simple:

rally your co-workers, any on the board or investors who will listen, form a group opposed to it, have meetings, get the press involved.

In short dissent from the secularist “orthodoxy” being imposed on you.

If your company is giving benefit sharing to a woman and a woman in a sexual relationship, why can’t a man living with his elderly mother give his benefits to her.

Both are economically depependent on each other. How should the fact that one pair has - or claims to have sex (their will be many fake gay marriages of convenience to get new orthodontics)?

This is logic that bishops conferences trotted out years ago that the liberal, secular press just reported and ignored.

The new orthodoxy is that if you oppose the state’s recognition of people unaware of their same-sex disorder, or those struggling with it, then you are a homophobe - a term that has been changed to mean “homosexual hater”, not its original psychological term meaning "a person with an irrational, clinical fear of homosexual persons.

Here in Canada Royal Bank employees defeated a stupid idea asking them to put rainbow stickers on their desks designating employees who were “gay friendly” (read tolerant, as opposed to those against endorsing an immoral lifestyle.

see the story of it archived at www.lifesite.net Royal Bank is the biggest in Canada, in numbers of branches I think. So employees can revolt politely and within the system over stupid programs.

Companies would not want to fire you for your beliefs, so if you do it all aboveboard and in the open they are asking for the Thomas More Legal Centre and other papist human rights lawyers coming down there to make THEM look the bigot.

“Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectual classes” - Arthur Schlesinger.

“Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice” (author unknown)


#4

correction: “Anti-Catholicism is the anti-semitism of the intellectual classes”


#5

This is very common in most big companies. Your health insurance provider most likely allows abortion as a covered procedure as well. It is impossible to not be attached to a immoral agenda somehow. So what are we to do? Join the Amish? We cannot change the world if we are not a part of it.


#6

form a union and insist that all domestic partnerships be eligible for company health care benefits - parent + adult child, worker + elderly parent, two unrelated people sharing an apartment for economic reasons, any other provision is illegal and discriminatory.


#7

[quote=puzzleannie]form a union and insist that all domestic partnerships be eligible for company health care benefits - parent + adult child, worker + elderly parent, two unrelated people sharing an apartment for economic reasons, any other provision is illegal and discriminatory.
[/quote]

I agree on both counts. 1) A union could effectively stop this entirely if the viewpoint of the union members is in opposition 2) If you just can not stop it, then insist that the benefits provided are value neutral, not specificallly for gay and lesbian partners, and perhaps not called “domestic partnership” benefits at all, but rather a benefit to help any one additional resident of your household. Such woulod include something as an elderly parent, sick sibiling, adult child who might legitimately need healthcare.


#8

There is something that must be considered here.

Some municipalities (San Francisco comes to mind right away) require that companies who wish to bid for contracts with it have certain things. One of them is this sort of thing.

I know it can be viewed as an excuse, but if a business wishes to be competitive they must do things that one doesn’t like.

You do have a way out though, you can leave and go work elsewhere.
It is a sad thing.


#9

[quote=Rucky]…company I work for, and the big change discussed was that now the company is providing benefits including health insurance for ‘domestic partners’.

So, do you have any thoughts on appropriate action for a person who believes in the Catholic view as marriage being a sacrament and a union between a man and a woman?

[/quote]

don’t have a “domestic partner”. just live your life appropriately. you are not receiving any benefits for a “live-in-lover” i assume, so there really isn’t a problem. you can’t change the world through your company’s health plan, you can only change it one heart at a time.


#10

So…your company is going to extend health insurance benefits to more people. Those people will be more likely to be able to get treatment for their medical needs?

This is a bad thing?

I would be concerned when they require you to have your own same-sex domestic partner to qualify for health insurance, or maybe when they assign you a same-sex domestic partner. Until then, so what?


#11

[quote=Penny Plain]So…your company is going to extend health insurance benefits to more people. Those people will be more likely to be able to get treatment for their medical needs?

This is a bad thing?

I would be concerned when they require you to have your own same-sex domestic partner to qualify for health insurance, or maybe when they assign you a same-sex domestic partner. Until then, so what?
[/quote]

Well it devalues the benefits of marriage.

If you can get health benefits for your partner, same-sex of not, then why get married in the first place? Why not just live together and have kids but never make the comitment to be a family.

You can talk about the common law marriage, but not every state has such a thing.


#12

[quote=ByzCath]Well it devalues the benefits of marriage.

If you can get health benefits for your partner, same-sex of not, then why get married in the first place? Why not just live together and have kids but never make the comitment to be a family.

You can talk about the common law marriage, but not every state has such a thing.
[/quote]

You think people should get married for the insurance benefits? Should be an interesting pre-Cana conference.


#13

[quote=Penny Plain]You think people should get married for the insurance benefits? Should be an interesting pre-Cana conference.
[/quote]

Please point out where I said that.

You were the one who asked what was wrong with allowing domestic partners. I spoke up and answered.

But then I guess I shouldn’t have, afterall, you do claim to be a troll and troll should not be encouraged.


#14

[quote=ByzCath]Please point out where I said that.

You were the one who asked what was wrong with allowing domestic partners. I spoke up and answered.

But then I guess I shouldn’t have, afterall, you do claim to be a troll and troll should not be encouraged.
[/quote]

You said that, if unmarried partners can get insurance benefits, it would “devalue the benefits of marriage.” You also said fewer people would get married if they could get the insurance benefits without marrying. Your implication is that people are getting married for the insurance benefits.

I read into your post the thought that insurance benefits for domestic partners are bad because fewer people will get married. Maybe I shouldn’t have?

I asked why you wanted to encourage people to marry who otherwise would marry solely for the purpose of obtaining insurance.

I claim to have been certified as a troll back when it was licit for the old-time posters to slap that label on newbies they disagreed with. Whether I am or am not a troll is a matter for individual discerrnment and judicious application of a properly-formed conscience.


#15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.