IBJNews

Domestic-partner benefits proposal introduced

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Health-care benefits would be offered to the domestic partners of Indianapolis city workers under a proposal introduced Monday night to the City-County Council.

As IBJ reported May 25, the proposal would offer insurance coverage to both same-sex and heterosexual unmarried couples.

The proposal, filed by City-County Councilor Angela Mansfield, a Democrat, was formally introduced and assigned to a committee Monday. A city consultant estimated that fewer than 30 of nearly 7,500 eligible workers would apply for the coverage.

Councilman Zach Adamson, a Democrat, told WTHR-TV the proposal would help in recruiting and retaining a quality work force.

Some council members are concerned about the additional cost.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Simple
    If you want to provide marriage benefits to same sex partners, then change the Indiana marriage law that currently outlaws recognition.

    If you cant get that done, then quit expecting marriage rights.
  • Ummm
    "This proposal is an attempt to recognize all three types of "marriages" that are specifically not recognized in Indiana."

    Nah. I'm pretty this is just a basic bare-bones fairness thing. Two (say) female coworkers (Americans, taxpayers, etc) can have the exact same job, but one can (as of now) be denied a significant benefit that the other isn't denied, essentially just because the gender of their partner is different.

    PS: Gay couples would still be, if this passed, barred from marriage recognition in Indiana.
    • Read
      See You in Court,

      I said you can be fired IN the state of Indiana, not BY the state of Indiana for being gay.
    • Defense of Marriage Act
      You can not be fired by the State of Indiana just for being gay.

      As you know, Indiana and the city of Indianapolis do not recognize domestic partnerships benefits for homosexuals, polygamists, or unmarried couples.

      "The State of Indiana policy is to provide a work environment free from sexual harassment and harassment based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation or gender identity, or physical or mental disability."

      http://www.in.gov/spd/2330.htm
    • Silly But True Example
      Here is a silly but true example......someone can be fired in the state of Indiana just because of the sexual orientation......Seriously, why do some people try to make the case against other people's rights with ridiculous and far reaching "examples".....How about we just allow gay people to marry...then all of these ridiculous examples of "potential" fraud can be laid to rest....
      • Silly But True Examples
        A single heterosexual/homosexual city employee could signs a "domestic partnership" agreement with their unemployed roommate to gain city benefits in exchange for their share of the rent, even though they are dating other people.(Who's going to check? There is no penalty)

        A unmarried city employee has three children, each with a different father, and signs a three "domestic partnership agreements" to gain benefits for each partner since they can provide the required documents to the HR Department. (It fits all the criteria for city benefits)

        A city employee has a moonlighting job (Many police/firemen do this) so they can claim two different domestic partners for benefits at each job. So the policeman/fireman claims the girlfriend on city plan and wife on another plan) There is no central database, like marriage licenses at the county clerks office to catch fraud)
      • See You In Court
        IndyTodd,

        Indiana law specifically outlaws same sex marriage, polygamist marriage (multiple partners), & common law marriage (unmarried couple palimony).

        This proposal is an attempt to recognize all three types of "marriages" that are specifically not recognized in Indiana.
        • Clarification4Jeb
          If you are white, straight, have a job and male - you are also eligible for these benefits. You already can get them for your wife if you are married. If you are not married - but in a relationship - with approval of this proposal, you will be able to get them for your partner as well. The problem is that in Indiana, same sex couples aren't allowed to get married. Then they were told that only married couples can get these benefits. Its a catch 22. Straight, unmarried couples have no excuses. They could get married if they wanted to. This at least makes it fair for same sex partners who now can have their long term relationship recognized and can receive insurance benefits for their partner - if the partner does not already have access to other insurance. This is the same way the deal currently works for married couples. If the spouse has access to insurance coverage through their own work - they also are not eligible to receive insurance through their spouse's insurance at the City of Indianapolis.
        • Wow
          Oh yea, now I am a "hater" because I said something about this...now I am screwed even more!!
        • Wow
          Hey, if you are single and living on your own and have no health insurance...move in with someone that does, and you can get insured!! You can even do it on the tax payers dime if you choose the right roomate, especially if it is the same sex. This state and our country wants to award everyone unless you are white, straight, have a job, and male...then you are screwed!! That is just AWESOME!!

        Post a comment to this story

        COMMENTS POLICY
        We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
         
        You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
         
        Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
         
        No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
         
        We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
         

        Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

        Sponsored by
        ADVERTISEMENT

        facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

        Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
        Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
         
        Subscribe to IBJ
        1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

        2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

        3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

        4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

        5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

        ADVERTISEMENT