a Someone should care, maybe not you....: Questions that shouldn't be asked .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Someone should care, maybe not you....

My thoughts on many things including the army, war, politics, the military corrections system, chaos, life, books, movies, and why there is no blue food. Feel free to comment on what I say. Feedback is nice.

My Photo
Name:

40+ year old former teacher, linguist, interrogator, soldier, and lastly convict. We all do stupid things every once and awhile. I am an economic conservative and a firm believer in civil rights. Starting a new life now and frankly not sure what I am going to be doing.

26 January 2006

Questions that shouldn't be asked

The University of Florida has instituted a new benefits package where "domestic partners" can be covered by an employees insurance plan. So if two people are living together they can get insurance. This is a good thing. The thing that was WRONG is that when filling out the forms for this you were required to affirm that they are in a "non platonic" relationship. In other words, they had to affirm that they are having sex. Now I understand that they want to avoid fraud and people just deciding to be roommates so that one of them can get insurance on the others policy but still, it is non of the systems business who is having sex. For one thing it would open them up to all sorts of potential discrimination lawsuits unless they started asking married couples if they are "non-platonic" too. Not to mention the privacy violations that would erupt all over the place if they ever actually started to try to police or verify these claims.
But hey, it is all for naught because UF has dropped the pledge after the controversy surfaced earlier this week. IN fact a university spokesman denies that "non-platonic" means a sexual relationship at all. (Proving he has a weak grasp of the English language.)
But no, it hasn't gone away because this is still in use at other institutions like Shands Healthcare, a hospital system affiliated with the University requires such a pledge of it's employees. No telling who else is out there doing the same thing.

For more info:
Report 1
Report 2

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's only two ways to handle this problem:

1) Allow people to designate exactly one (1) other person to qualify for the various and sundry benefits and privileges of being a spouse. In fact, it wouldn't even be necessary for two people to make a reciprocal declaration, but you might add that constraint. No other qualifications or constraints -- gender, place of residence, nothing -- just write down the name.

2) Eliminate all the biases in favor of marriage, so that it of absolutely no relevance whether or not you have a relationship, much less exactly what or with whom. The question becomes irrelevant when there's no benefit to be gained. You don't have to worry about selling your privacy for a tax deduction or automatic power of attorney.

1:51 PM  
Blogger exMI said...

I suspect people would prefer the first over the second. Although I agree that either would work. The only problem with 1 would be then getting children of the "couple" covered.

7:12 AM  
Blogger The Zombieslayer said...

The thing that was WRONG is that when filling out the forms for this you were required to affirm that they are in a "non platonic" relationship. In other words, they had to affirm that they are having sex.

True. That's an invasion of privacy. Plus, what about loving, committed couples that don't have sex. I have some old people in mind, but also what about people who are asexual but still in love?

I like #1 of what anonymous said.

9:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home