What would Jesus do about domestic partner benefits?

Personally, I have a problem with domestic partner benefits because they, like regular marriage partner benefits, are discriminatory. However, in light of the discriminatory practices of our government in terms of marriage itself, I can concede that they do serve a valid purpose. ...but I think there is a much better solution that doesn't discriminate against anyone.

A few years ago, my former employer, after many months of heated debate, decided to extend medical benefits to "domestic partners". One of the strongest supporters of this decision was a good friend of mine who was homosexual. She was living with another woman who had a child they were raising together...extending these benefits allowed her to provide coverage for her partner and her child...and I think this is a good thing. Of course, if the government had simply allowed them to legally marry, the domestic partner coverage woudn't have been necessary.

The problem I had with the decision is that it discriminated against ME in several ways.

First, extending those benefits caused a significant increase in the cost of "individual" AND "family" coverage for everyone. I had to pay about $20 per month more for individual coverage and when I had a child, I had to pay another $200/month on top of that to include him (it was about $50/month less for family coverage before the domestic partner benefits took effect). I have no idea how much it increased costs for my employer but I'm sure it was significant and probably affected me indirectly through the amount of raises and other benefits they were able to offer.

Second, after my son was born, I wanted to form a "domestic partnership" with a friend who was willing to share household and parenting duties with me. Because this friend was not the same sex, I couldn't even lie and claim him as a domestic partner to provide health insurance coverage. In effect, the domestic partner rules required opposite sex partners to legally marry if they wanted to extend benefits...it didn't require the same level of commitment from same-sex partners. (...and yes, I concede that the same-sex partners don't even have the marriage option so as I said earlier, there is a valid reason for having domestic partner coverage at this time).

I don't think Jesus would be happy about any reward system based solely on sex...and the way domestic partner coverage is written bases the decision entirely on whether the people are having a sexual relationship. If they are opposite sex, they must be married...not a problem...but if they are same sex relationships, they need only claim a sexual relationship to have coverage and I don't think Jesus would label that equitable (especially since it encourages lying...I could easily claim a false sexual relationship with another single mom to provide us all with coverage).

As I mentioned above, I think there is a MUCH better solution that doesn't discriminate against anyone. Allow people to extend coverage to anyone that lives in the same household, regardless of relationship, on a per person basis. This would allow people to share domestic duties with anyone they choose...male or female, same sex or opposite sex, friends, lovers, spouses, and even employees (e.g., a nanny or live-in maid)...it would also cover biological children, foster children, or even the children you were raising for a friend or family member. For example, my brother lived with me when my son was very young...he had a part-time job but his primary responsibility was taking care of the house and my son while I worked (full-time, professional position). In every way that matters, he was my domestic partner (and NO, there was no incest LOL) but I had no way of providing him with insurance coverage. Instead of wrapping it up in sex or whether the people are legally married, why not let US make the determination who we want to share household duties with and the charge us based on that decision.

Right now, I'm paying the same amount to provide coverage for one child that another employee is paying to provide coverage for her four children...if I want to live with someone (I don't, but if I did), I would be required to marry him to provide coverage but if he became a she, I could provide coverage even if we were simply friends. What business does the government (or an employer...who, in my case, happens to be the government) have to decide what my "household" should look like or who I can legitimately choose to support? Either limit medical benefits to the employee only OR allow the employee to add anyone in their household to the policy at a set per-person cost...anything in between, including "family" coverage and "domestic partner" coverage discriminates unnecessarily against any number of people!

Jesus loved everyone. He would be appalled at the fact people make such a big deal out of something that really isn't any business of theirs. Love thy neighbor....be it man or woman. same sex relationships have been around as long as we have, it just wasn't known.

I think employers should offer domestic partner benefits. I'm am not a same sex partner, but I am not married to the man that I share a home and children with for the past 12 years. There are lots of couples who chose not to go through with the traditional wedding ceremonies. I think that should be taken into consideration.

Depends on how long the two have been together

But I do know that if they do allow this, then they might as well bring back the Law of you married if you have lived together for 7 or more years without actually saying or signing a marriage license

If two people spend time together and have split their earnings and bills...I have no problems with it

But it does throw out the whole marriage thing, which would throw the census out also and make the gov. mad if it can not get an accurate account of all its people for the taxes

So I guess...I'm a fence straddler on this issue and can be of no help

Well according to "The Law",as put forth by the Bible,if you have a domestic partner you are living in sin because you're not married. Also according to the Bible,if your domestic partner is someone of the same sex,you are committing a sin that calls for death. So my guess is Jebus would have been against domestic partner benefits.

Obama666

It seems to me that Jesus was an Essene Jew and was a little more lenient on the parts of society that the norms like to look down on.

He hung around with prostitutes and bawdy fishermen, so I would venture to guess that he was on the side of the underdog, and likely would have empathy for the plight of domestic partners.

There is some indication that Jesus had an unusual arrangement with Mark as well, that exists in extra biblical gospels and is alluded to in the book of Mark, so Christians getting all upset at the Gay, should try and hold judgement like Jesus told them to do.

I don't think that financial benefits are one of the things Jesus really dealt with. "No one can serve God AND money." I don't think the matter is about gay marriage, itself, but about the dispute over money.

If you were asking how Jesus felt about gay marriage, then I would have to say I don't know. Yes, I've read the bible and I know all the verses that people want to *claim* say that being gay is wrong and horrible, but they don't say the same thing to me when I read them.

Well Jesus would approve of it because He loved everyone, irregardless of their morality..He didn't judge...but you have to consider the companies paying this benefit...especially in these economic hard times...it costs them a lot to give benefits to married people and their dependents so where is the line drawn? What criteria should be put into place? Seems a little too complicated to me at this juncture to just give benefits to everyone friendly with an employee...

Think about relaxing the laws concerning marriage...and allow those serious about one another to marry...then the entire question is clear...

Just a few of my thoughts on the subject....

Jesus would not be in favor of 'domestic partner' benefits. He is completely against homosexuality.

My own opinion is that it would make marriage more of a farce than it has become over the years.

I'm sure Jesus would agree with whatever any of us happen to believe, because in all times and all cases Jesus must agree with *us*.

Of course, that position isn't stated explicitly in Scripture; but how else can we create God in our own image but to assume God must agree with *us* and *our* position (whomever the "us" is)?

I bet it would benefit Mary Magdalene and his Mother, (who were both conveniently labelled as whores in the existing scheme of things.)

I bet Jeesus doesn't give a damn about any kind of benefits. If you need to negotiate about benefits, get in touch with Satan. He runs the show around here.

Jeesus just wanted out. And he got to too.

It's funny how all the things that are a concern to Jesus' fan club in the USA are just the things he'd be happiest about--I can hear him now:

"Aliens, shmaliens, let them in and give them jobs!"

"Gay, shmay, it's love that counts!"

"And what's this "God's Own Party crap!"