No spousal coverage or cover one other adult?

[PaulinVA]

The District of Columbia now allows gay marriage.

That means gay spouses are considered the same as opposite sex spouses, and must have the same benefits.

If you were a business owner in the District, how would you do to comply with the law?

1. Georgetown model where an employee can cover any other adult living under his/her roof, no matter what the relationship (spouse, parent, sibling, lover)
2. Catholic Charities model where new employees no longer are offered spousal coverage at all.
3. Nothing. Let the District sue you once you refuse to enroll a gay spouse for benefits.

 

[hellopeople]

The District of Columbia now allows gay marriage.

That means gay spouses are considered the same as opposite sex spouses, and must have the same benefits.

If you were a business owner in the District, how would you do to comply with the law?

1. Georgetown model where an employee can cover any other adult living under his/her roof, no matter what the relationship (spouse, parent, sibling, lover)
2. Catholic Charities model where new employees no longer are offered spousal coverage at all.
3. Nothing. Let the District sue you once you refuse to enroll a gay spouse for benefits.

There is a 4th…just give benefits to all spouses, gay or straight. I think what the church did was wrong and the great majority of the people they are withholding coverage from aren’t gay. Also, no other sin makes your spouse inelligable for health care…which is a double standard. What about people that are remarried without a proper annulment? They are living in just as much sin as the gay couple, but are still getting health care.

The church’s decision to take away health care from the spouses of all new employees is does not mesh with Jesus’ message at all IMO.

 

[Rence]

Some companies, due to the economy, will pay for all or half of the employees benefits, but all other covered persons are completely paid for by the employee. You can do that, that way you are not paying for other members on the policy, yet you don’t deny someone health coverage?

I’d contact a lawyer and explain to the lawyer what your concerns are and let the laywer help you pick an option that is legal and that fits in your ethics.

 

[PaulinVA]

There is a 4th…just give benefits to all spouses, gay or straight. I think what the church did was wrong and the great majority of the people they are withholding coverage from aren’t gay. Also, no other sin makes your spouse inelligable for health care…which is a double standard. What about people that are remarried without a proper annulment? They are living in just as much sin as the gay couple, but are still getting health care.

The church’s decision to take away health care from the spouses of all new employees is does not mesh with Jesus’ message at all IMO.

is this really an option if you are the Church? Not really.

There is no need to ask, no need to investigate. Gay spouses are following the wrong pattern, can never be in a valid marriage.

 

[puzzleannie]

The1. Georgetown model where an employee can cover any other adult living under his/her roof, no matter what the relationship (spouse, parent, sibling, lover)

.

to me this is the only thing to make sense, why can someone cover a live-in lover but I can’t cover my adult son who is disabled and lives with us?

 

[hellopeople]

is this really an option if you are the Church? Not really.

There is no need to ask, no need to investigate. Gay spouses are following the wrong pattern, can never be in a valid marriage.

Well according to the church neither can people that were already divorced.

 

[manualman]

Or option E (I lost count): Move the business to a cheaper location in one of the suburban communities and carry on as before. Not sure why Catholic Charities didn’t do that…

 

[St_Francis]

There is a 4th…just give benefits to all spouses, gay or straight.

The point is that a person of the same sex as the employee can not be a spouse.

I think what the church did was wrong and the great majority of the people they are withholding coverage from aren’t gay.

Maybe what the DC Council did was wrong–not allowing *freedom of religion *in these matters? Maybe the CC’s attempt to continue to work for the good of the people in DC while at the same time following the law that *the DC Council *put into place is the right thing to do.

And the CC is not “withholding” coverage; they are simply offering only one form of health insurance (employee-only) in the future. People can choose to work for CC or not depending on how that works out for them.

Also, no other sin makes your spouse inelligable for health care…which is a double standard. What about people that are remarried without a proper annulment? They are living in just as much sin as the gay couple, but are still getting health care.

They would be getting health care in any case; the problem is the insurance.

The Church saw that toleration of the re-marriage-without-annulment issue (probably a lot lower problem than you think in a Catholic organisation, also amendable) was all right, but that toleration of or apparent support of homosexual “marriage” was going too far.

The church’s decision to take away health care from the spouses of all new employees is does not mesh with Jesus’ message at all IMO.

They are not “taking away” health *insurance; *they are not offering it.

I think that the actions of the DC Council were in the wrong; the DC CC attempt to deal with the new law, which does not include any exceptions, is what they perceived as the best way to deal with and *unjust law. *

No one is “entitled” to health insurance or to health insurance benefits provided by the employer, so for an employer to not offer it, or to offer it under a limited policy, is not “taking away” anything from anyone.

Or option E (I lost count): Move the business to a cheaper location in one of the suburban communities and carry on as before. Not sure why Catholic Charities didn’t do that…

It’s hard to be the *DC *Catholic Charities if you in another place altogether…

 

[PaulinVA]

Well according to the church neither can people that were already divorced.

I am quite amazed when people make an argument like this.

The analogous situation is a heterosexual couple, not a divorced couple.

When a person presents their opposite-sex spouse to be covered, Catholic Charities assumes that the marriage is valid. Most are. When a same-sex spouse is presented for coverage, there is no way that the person is conforming to Church teaching. It’s staring you right in the face.

 

[PaulinVA]

to me this is the only thing to make sense, why can someone cover a live-in lover but I can’t cover my adult son who is disabled and lives with us?

I am leaning toward this. But, it seems like the liberals are winning with this one. The only way to justify it is that you are expaniding coverage to a lot of people who need it - and that’s not bad, is it?

Manualman- I suppose that Catholic Charities could move to suburban Maryland - aren’t PG and Montgomery counties in the Diocese of Washington? But that wasn’t the point of the question.

 

[St_Francis]

Manualman- I suppose that Catholic Charities could move to suburban Maryland - aren’t PG and Montgomery counties in the Diocese of Washington? But that wasn’t the point of the question.

It’s not really that easy for people to get from some areas of DC out to Maryland. CC already exists in PG and Montgomery Counties, so what would happen would be that the places in DC would close, and then everyone would complain, as they did when Boston closed their adoption agency, about how mean and wrong the Church is about this, rather than blaming *the DC Council *which *passed the bill. *

 

[Moscati]

The District of Columbia now allows gay marriage.

That means gay spouses are considered the same as opposite sex spouses, and must have the same benefits.

If you were a business owner in the District, how would you do to comply with the law?

1. Georgetown model where an employee can cover any other adult living under his/her roof, no matter what the relationship (spouse, parent, sibling, lover)
2. Catholic Charities model where new employees no longer are offered spousal coverage at all.
3. Nothing. Let the District sue you once you refuse to enroll a gay spouse for benefits.

Option 1. Completely separate from the gay marriage issue, that would help a lot of poor college students like me who lose their healthcare coverage right as they graduate, with no prospects for a job that provides it. My dad has VA benefits, and doesn’t use our insurance’s stuff anyway.

 

[royal_archer]

The District of Columbia now allows gay marriage.

That means gay spouses are considered the same as opposite sex spouses, and must have the same benefits.

If you were a business owner in the District, how would you do to comply with the law?

1. Georgetown model where an employee can cover any other adult living under his/her roof, no matter what the relationship (spouse, parent, sibling, lover)
2. Catholic Charities model where new employees no longer are offered spousal coverage at all.
3. Nothing. Let the District sue you once you refuse to enroll a gay spouse for benefits.

Originally, spouses stayed home. and raised the kids. The company of the working spouse bennefitted because the non working spouse freed up the working spouse to work instead of always running home to take care of their kids.

Therefore I propose a fourth option, cover the worker, their biological children, and the biological parrents of those children until the kids turn 18 or until the other parrent gets a job outside the home.

 

[selylidne]

The District of Columbia now allows gay marriage.

That means gay spouses are considered the same as opposite sex spouses, and must have the same benefits.

If you were a business owner in the District, how would you do to comply with the law?

1. Georgetown model where an employee can cover any other adult living under his/her roof, no matter what the relationship (spouse, parent, sibling, lover)
2. Catholic Charities model where new employees no longer are offered spousal coverage at all.
3. Nothing. Let the District sue you once you refuse to enroll a gay spouse for benefits.

It might be more expensive, but I really like option #1. Especially in these hard economic times, people are moving back in with family, or getting roommates instead of living alone. It would be nice if a working adult child could get benefits for her elderly live-in mother, for example, or if two old friends who live together non-romantically could use their benefits to care for each other.

 

[royal_archer]

It might be more expensive, but I really like option #1. Especially in these hard economic times, people are moving back in with family, or getting roommates instead of living alone. It would be nice if a working adult child could get benefits for her elderly live-in mother, for example, or if two old friends who live together non-romantically could use their benefits to care for each other.

So a single person could cover an adult child but a married couple couldn’t?

An adult only child could get covered but a second sibling couldn’t?

Seeing the slippery slope yet? regardless of where the line is drawn someone is not going to be happy.

How about just letting employers decide what compensation packages they want to offer and let market forces do the rest.

 

[selylidne]

How about just letting employers decide what compensation packages they want to offer and let market forces do the rest.

Right. I was answering what I’d do for benefits if I owned my own company in DC.