by Brenda Bowers

Created on: August 25, 2008

When the topic of providing health insurance benefits to gay or lesbian partners has been cussed and discussed, the discussions always seem to bog down in the side issues of right and wrong of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, which have nothing to do with this particular issue. The issue is: who should be allowed to be included on the employees health insurance period; no emotional side issues.

I am going to relate what happened in my city because from news reports this seems to be the way the issue is often being handled when city officials decide to extend health benefits to non-family members and know there will be little if any public support for the action.

Eligibility for employee health care coverage has always been simple: the only people eligible for coverage under the employees health insurance plan is the employees immediate family. That is, wife or husband and children to age 18 or 23 if in college. No aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws or parents because they are indeed family but not immediate family. Neither may health benefits be extended to one who is not related in any way to the employee.

Now our City Manager and Mayor have opened this eligibility up to the "partners" of gay and lesbian employees. Or, more accurately, to individuals not legally related to the employee by blood or a legal contract. There is a little clause thrown in to the city's agreement that the employee must sign stating that the relationship is "a committed relationship" and "the partners are financially co-dependent", but just as their sexual relationship has no bearing on the real issue neither does their commitment or financial co-dependency. No matter how "committed" or how "financially co-dependent" the partners or live-in companions may be they are still unrelated by the blood relationship of being siblings or by the legally approved contract of marriage which are the only two criteria that define "immediate family".

So what the two city officials have done is open the city's obligation of employee health insurance coverage to a non-family entity, and by implication to virtually anyone the employee should wish to designate as a "dependent" and willingly pay the employees share of the tax payer subsidized health care insurance for that person. All of the named family members listed above and including friends, neighbors and the man down the block ! But the real kicker give away is that our Mayor under the City Charter doesn't need any city councilmen's approval because

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next Page >>