Registered Domestic Geese

A friend presents the following for comment:  In the State of Oregon, a company that offers medical insurance to the spouse and family of employees must also offer coverage to cohabiting same-sex couples when one is employed by the company.  The firm is not, however, required to offer that same coverage to an opposite-sex couple.  In olden days, what was good for the goose was good for the gander, in Oregon regarding medical coverage, it's better to be two gooses or two ganders.  Doesn't seem right, does it?

And I responded: 

OK. You caught me in fit of boredom, so to your question "Does it seem right?" I'll have to say "It depends."  In Oregon, to quote one source, "Since 2008, same-sex couples who register as domestic partners in Oregon  have had the same rights as married couples when it comes to paying state income taxes, making end-of-life decisions for a critically ill partner or passing assets to heirs." See, http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/07dec/newlaws.html ; And Oregon has relaxed marijuana laws though I am not sure of the relevance.

The definition for "domestic partner" excludes male/female relationships.  http://www.co.marion.or.us/CO/records/ddp.htm. ; Registration must be at a local county "marriage office" and the two are then subject to judgments of dissolution, annulment or legal separation.  In other words, it appears that a long term commitment as "domestic partner" is envisioned by the parties and the state.  And the company that you refer to, I expect, uses the "registered domestic partner" requirement and not simply "co-habitation" twosomes.  If they allow benefits only to same sex roommates it would, first of all, be dumb and ... well, just dumb.  However, given Oregon law and citizen attitude equating "registered domestic partners" with married couples, allowing the benefits for "registered domestic partners" does have a righteousness about it.

Now, assuming that life has continued generally the same between males and females as in our youth, most (many?) who cohabit do so knowing that they do not HAVE to nor WANT to make a "ball and chain" commitment to the cohabiting partner.  "Friends With Privileges" is not the same as long term commitment.  How do you distinguish the two?  Changing the law to allow for a sort of modified male/female civil commitment equal in rights as in marriage but calling it something else might work. But that sounds dumb as well.

 In sum, as to the goose/gander issue, geese are monogamous but one might expect either the goose or the gander to wander amidst the gaggle while leaving it to Snowball and Napoleon to work out the legal structure.

 

Respect

The headline read "Romney Chokes Up Explaining How He Met Former SEAL Killed in Benghazi Attack" and the story, as quoted from Romney, described his meeting with Glen Doherty, a former seal killed defending the consulate in Benghazi.  Romney finished his tearful "remembrance":  “They didn’t hunker down where they were in safety – they rushed there to go help,” Romney concluded with emotion.  “This is the American way – we go where there’s trouble. We go where we’re needed.  And right now we’re needed– right now, the American people need us.”  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-chokes-up-explaining-how-he-met-one-of-the-seals-killed-in-benghazi-attack/

"But Romney’s not only telling the story against the wishes of Doherty’s family, he’s also mischaracterizing his encounter with the former SEAL. According to Glen Doherty’s longtime friend, Doherty said Romney had introduced himself four times in the span of less than 30 minutes, saying it was "pathetic" ... and that ... Glen believed it to be very insincere and stale.”  Doherty's mother, interviewed by a radio station, said “I don’t trust Romney. He shouldn’t make my son’s death part of his political agenda. It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,”.  Romney ignored the mother's request to stop using her son's memory until national media picked up the story.  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1142665/-Romney-ignores-request-from-mother-of-Navy-Seal-killed-in-Benghazi-to-stop-using-son-in-stump-speech?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29  So breaking it Mr. Romney deliberately and repeatedly used the heroic death of Glen Doherty in an apparently concocted "remembrance" of an earlier encounter between the two of them.

The more egregious conduct by Romney in my opinion was to suggest in this instance that his political ambition in entering this presidential campaign was comparable in courage to the heroic effort of the former Navy SEALs in rushing to protect the consulate staff.  In the recent past many attacks were made here and elsewhere from the Right arguing that President Obama had claimed personal, political credit for the actions of SEALS and other Special Ops at the killing of bin Laden.  What do these same voices from the Right say now about this political message from Romney.  Or will they spin or turn their backs.

Presidential Debate Round One

The President's performance was disappointing, at the least. The President defended his record and argued for reelection. What he did not do is show that he appreciates that this election is about applications of opposing values and ideology and not merely a choice between men. Fighting for those who are expected to suffer under an opposing ideology he should have fought with passion for them/us and at least fired back; there was so much ammunition available. Tragically, a vast segment of the Great American Public having seen this and needing no fact or logic will say "Duh!" and zombie-like cast a vote. We needed a Chavez or a Tony Zale.