Dead State Troopers Family Denied Benefits

[DRob]

It strikes me..................

Again, though, what you're saying ignores the point that if Kelly were a woman, they would have had the choice to get married, and Kelly would have gotten benefits..................................

The parties to such a relationship are surely perfectly clear on the legal situation surrounding it. So they didn't have the legal option to get married. Don't you think they knew that? Did they enter into the situation assuming that the State would treat them the same as a husband and wife? I don't think so. Did they take any steps to make the child a legal dependant of the trooper? Could they file a joint tax return? Could they if they were an unmarried heterosexual couple? While the debate as to whether or not homosexuality is genetic or a choice, right or wrong, legal or illegal will continue for who knows how long, the bottom line is they must have, or certainly should have, known what they were getting into. If they made no contingency plan, like life insurance with each as the other's beneficiary, for the purposes of this discussion they are no different than a man and a women living together who had also made no such plan.

Or.........maybe they woke up one morning to the realization they were gay and decided to cohabit with no thought as to the ramifications.

DRob

 

[dross]

The parties to such a relationship are surely perfectly clear on the legal situation surrounding it. So they didn't have the legal option to get married. Don't you think they knew that? Did they enter into the situation assuming that the State would treat them the same as a husband and wife? I don't think so. Did they take any steps to make the child a legal dependant of the trooper? Could they file a joint tax return? Could they if they were an unmarried heterosexual couple? While the debate as to whether or not homosexuality is genetic or a choice, right or wrong, legal or illegal will continue for who knows how long, the bottom line is they must have, or certainly should have, known what they were getting into. If they made no contingency plan, like life insurance with each as the other's beneficiary, for the purposes of this discussion they are no different than a man and a women living together who had also made no such plan.

Or.........maybe they woke up one morning to the realization they were gay and decided to cohabit with no thought as to the ramifications.

DRob

Yes, I'm sure they knew what they were getting into. I'm not sure how that changes the question of the rightness, wrongness, or lack of freedom in the choices they were faced with.

You're knocking down a straw man. I didn't argue that they were hoodwinked by the state, just ill-served.

And again, the argument you just made could have been used about an interracial couple at certain times and places in our history.

 

[hornadylnl]

The problem with abolishing the governments role in marriage is two fold. One (the most important) its taxable, thus profitable as long as folks keep falling in love and procreating. Two, more logical... its not the marriage that the government needs to intervene in, its the divorce that becomes messy and needs civil parenting by our justice system. Does that make me agree with it...no.

Not entirely its not. I do pay into my benefits, but even if I didn't.... LODD benefits is one of the few expenditures that is OK in my book. I can honestly say that if I knew my family wouldn't be compensated for me having a LODD, I would do something else. It's interesting how folk want to praise those who serve until there is an issue concerning tax payer money. That's pitiful.

According to these statistics, spitting out babies isn't a function of being married. If it were, we wouldn't have the illegitimacy rates we have. VDARE.com: 02/26/09 - Illegitimacy Rates Surge—Driven By Third World Immigration

I want each child to grow up with a caring and involved mother and father as much as anyone. Government can't use the excuse that state sponsored marriages help to provide 2 parent homes when so many of their other policies work against it. Marriage penalty taxes, welfare and other social program spending, etc. are much more likely to go to single mothers. Just like the example of my cousin living with his ex wife again. He makes very good money but if they get married again, she loses her food stamps. Policies like that encourage illegitimacy, not discourage it.

As for as public service life insurance policies and benefits, I have the utmost respect for those who serve. A private employer has a need for work to be done. He advertises for a job opportunity. He has to offer a level of compensation that will attract the quality of employee he desires. It doesn't matter whether he pays you strictly by the hour with no benefits or a lower salary with benefits, the cost will be the same in the end.

RNM, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate subsidizing government employees health care plans to cover abortion, why should I have to subsidize a homosexual partner? I don't care whether you choose to sleep with someone of the same sex or not, just don't make me subsidize it.

As for government employees getting pensions, why are they entitled to them? Why are their families entitled to them when the employee dies? My job doesn't offer a pension. Most jobs don't offer a pension. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for a guy who works 20 years and then lives for another 30+ years, thus drawing longer than he actually worked?

 

[UncleMike]

We've been married for going on forty years. I've never considered the State issued Marriage License anything more that a tax receipt. Marriages are a result of religious practices, NOT PERMISSION FROM THE STATE!!!
We took our vows in our church, before God and our families with the officiating of our priest, (substitute Rabbi, Pastor, Imam or whatever).
No state that ever existed has the right to "sanctify" ANY marriage.
Therefore, since the State's ONLY interest in any marriage is the income derived from the licenses and the tax burden placed on married couples, I believe that the States should BUTT OUT of the marriage business and let the Church's Synagogues, and Mosques handle the sanctification of such unions.
Mike

 

[Doobie]

From the Stand to Reason web site: The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no , straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

Both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state's concern.

Stand to Reason: May/June 2004 Solid Ground (NR)http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6553

 

[PatMcGroyne]

Completely off-topic and not for this arena.

It's a lot more than a mere slip of paper!

If Kelly were a woman, they would have at least had the choice to be married or not. In most states, gay men and women don't even have that choice.

 

[redneckmedic]

According to these statistics, spitting out babies isn't a function of being married. If it were, we wouldn't have the illegitimacy rates we have. VDARE.com: 02/26/09 - Illegitimacy Rates Surge—Driven By Third World Immigration

I want each child to grow up with a caring and involved mother and father as much as anyone. Government can't use the excuse that state sponsored marriages help to provide 2 parent homes when so many of their other policies work against it. Marriage penalty taxes, welfare and other social program spending, etc. are much more likely to go to single mothers. Just like the example of my cousin living with his ex wife again. He makes very good money but if they get married again, she loses her food stamps. Policies like that encourage illegitimacy, not discourage it.

I don't know how to answer this, I suppose I see your point, buts it doesn't really contradict the point I am making.

As for as public service life insurance policies and benefits, I have the utmost respect for those who serve. A private/government employer has a need for work to be done. THey advertises for a job opportunity.THey has to offer a level of compensation that will attract the quality of employee THey desire. It doesn't matter whether THey pay you strictly by the hour with no benefits or a lower salary with benefits, the cost will be the same in the end.

RNM, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate subsidizing government employees health care plans to cover abortion, why should I have to subsidize a homosexual partner? I don't care whether you choose to sleep with someone of the same sex or not, just don't make me subsidize it. Good point.

As for government employees getting pensions, why are they entitled to them? Why are their families entitled to them when the employee dies? My job doesn't offer a pension. Most jobs don't offer a pension. Most jobs don't have a 5000 applicant process for 15-25 positions. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for a guy who works 20 years and then lives for another 30+ years, thus drawing longer than he actually
worked?

Avg life expectancy of a firefighter is 10yrs less than the average person (currant avg life expectancy is 72) mine is 62. I will prob retire at 52.

The second is quite simple, and your going to hate the answer. Our local 416 (union) negotiates a new contract each (x) years. Its basically a broken or split salary. Instead of getting x $ per year, we get a package. Pension (that we pay into) PERF; a salary; medical benefits (that we pay into); and LODD, that we have to pass annual physicals to qualify for. Not just a turn your head and cough physical. Full cardiac stress test, BMI pod, blood work, so on. LODD compensation isn't a pension its an insurance.

I think we agree on the moral issue, its the ethical issue thats the hic-up. I think that civil rights is civil rights even if it has sin attached to it.

 

[samot]

If it was up to me, we would dispense with the entire concept of marriage as a government metric. Spiritual folks could marry in accordance to their views, but no couple, gay or straight would gain access to government incentives without registering the partnership through their local government, in a similar manner to the current "marriage license". This would eliminate the the infringement of gays on the religious concept of "marriage", get the government out of the bedroom, and slightly increase gross revenues to local governments through the increase in fees for registering a social contract.

I do not agree with gay dudes getting married , but what you do in your own home is your buisness. I really really really dont agree with 2 gay dudes raising a young boy!!!!!! Its just wriong and causes serious phsycological damage to a child. I find it hard to believe noone has thought of the child here !!!

Back to your post, if im reading correctly your basing marriage on a legal agreement ?? A goverment contract means nothing in my marriage. My verbal contract to my wife is the binding agreement.
Like i say i may not be understanding your post correctly

 

[mrjarrell]

I do not agree with gay dudes getting married , but what you do in your own home is your buisness. I really really really dont agree with 2 gay dudes raising a young boy!!!!!! Its just wriong and causes serious phsycological damage to a child. I find it hard to believe noone has thought of the child here !!!

We can assume that you have unbiased science based proof to back up this assertion, right? Not just Bill O'Reilly talking points? The American Academy of Pediatrics has actually studied the subject and they seem to think you're wrong.
Basic statistics would point out that children of heterosexual couples are harmed at a far greater rate, especially where sexual molestation is concerned.

 

[hornadylnl]

Most jobs don't have a 5000 applicant process for 15-25 positions.

Then one could easily argue that there isn't a lack of people willing to do the job due to poor pay and benefits. The fact that there are 5000 applicants for 15-25 positions tells me that a large amount of people view it as a gravy train and want in on it. If there were 2 people applying for 15-25 positions, that would tell me that people aren't willing to do the job for the pay and benefits offered.

The second is quite simple, and your going to hate the answer. Our local 416 (union) negotiates a new contract each (x) years. Its basically a broken or split salary. Instead of getting x $ per year, we get a package. Pension (that we pay into) PERF; a salary; medical benefits (that we pay into); and LODD, that we have to pass annual physicals to qualify for. Not just a turn your head and cough physical. Full cardiac stress test, BMI pod, blood work, so on. LODD compensation isn't a pension its an insurance.

I think we agree on the moral issue, its the ethical issue thats the hic-up. I think that civil rights is civil rights even if it has sin attached to it.

There are many dangerous jobs out there necessary to the functioning of our society that aren't government jobs. I know this will come off as unappreciative of LEO's, Firemen, and other emergency workers (not my intention), but why are they entitled to better benefits than those not working for the government?

I guess my point is, why does the partner of a public employee think he's entitled to a lifetime of benefits on the taxpayer dime?

If I were an employer, I'd pay salary only based on the amount of work performed with no benefits. If my competitors normally pay $30k in salary and $10k in benefits, I will pay $40k (or the amount needed to attract good employees) a year and offer zero benefits. That way I don't have to pay all of this other non work related stuff. Those who don't want a premium healthcare plan can pocket the money. Those who do want a premium healthcare plan can purchase it on their own with their paycheck. It'd save me fortunes to not have to manage all this crap.

 

[samot]

We can assume that you have unbiased science based proof to back up this assertion, right? Not just Bill O'Reilly talking points? The American Academy of Pediatrics has actually studied the subject and they seem to think you're wrong.
Basic statistics would point out that children of heterosexual couples are harmed at a far greater rate, especially where sexual molestation is concerned.

I dont need the American Acadamy of Pediatrics, or a PHD.. A normal brain should be all you need to see that having 2 gay dads (or whatever they call em) is going to have serious negative affects on a child.. Period

also your basic statistics are not ballanced, since theres like 95% heterosexual couples compared to like 5% gay couples
Also, i didnt bring up sexual molestation.. U did

 

[mrjarrell]

So, it's just you "opinion"? That's OK, too. You have a right to an opinion, just don't confuse it with fact.

 

[Joe Williams]

We can assume that you have unbiased science based proof to back up this assertion, right? Not just Bill O'Reilly talking points? The American Academy of Pediatrics has actually studied the subject and they seem to think you're wrong.
Basic statistics would point out that children of heterosexual couples are harmed at a far greater rate, especially where sexual molestation is concerned.

Aren't those the people that tell us it's bad to have guns in the house with kids?

 

[samot]

I hope is the general consencious, not just my opinion

 

[dross]

I hope is the general consencious, not just my opinion

The fact that everyone believes something adds not one bit of truth or untruth to it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts.

Two gay men raising a child may be harmful to the child, or it may not. You, however, have proved nothing by stating your opinion as fact, and then invoking other peoples' opinions as back up for your opinion.

Are you aware of some evidence that two gay men raising a child is harmful to that child?

 

[dross]

If I were an employer, I'd pay salary only based on the amount of work performed with no benefits. If my competitors normally pay $30k in salary and $10k in benefits, I will pay $40k (or the amount needed to attract good employees) a year and offer zero benefits. That way I don't have to pay all of this other non work related stuff. Those who don't want a premium healthcare plan can pocket the money. Those who do want a premium healthcare plan can purchase it on their own with their paycheck. It'd save me fortunes to not have to manage all this crap.

I agree with you in principle, but you'll run afoul of many, many laws, regulations, tax implications, and legal precedents. Not saying I'm not with you in spirit, but you'd have to change the world first.

As a person who has interviewed literally thousands of people, and hired hundreds, I can tell you that many people will turn down salary to get medical benefits, even when I could demonstrate that they would net more money with their salary increase. Don't ask me to explain it, but I've seen it many times. Kind of like some people would rather let the government use their money all year and then get back a large refund check, rather than make sure the government gets to use not one penny more of their money by adjusting their deductions.

The world just ain't set up for us libertarians.

 

[drillsgt]

There are many dangerous jobs out there necessary to the functioning of our society that aren't government jobs. I know this will come off as unappreciative of LEO's, Firemen, and other emergency workers (not my intention), but why are they entitled to better benefits than those not working for the government?

Often what are considered dangerous jobs by society aren't too bad it's just the perception. When looking at fatality rates LE and others don't even rate. If you look at just hard numbers of deaths though LE comes in at around #4. I don't agree with all this pension crap either, that's what life insurance is for, I have a lot of it no reason for someone to not have it especially if they perceive themselves as in a high risk occupation. This whole PERF thing in IN gets me steamed anyway. When I moved here after my last mobilization that was my plan to find an LE job but found out about the age restrictions here, all based on PERF. Related to the original post, too bad you should have had insurance (maybe they did and just want more).

1. Fishers and related fishing workers
Fatality rate*: 128.9


2. Logging workers
Fatality rate: 115.7


3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers
Fatality rate: 72.4


4. Structural iron and steel workers
Fatality rate: 46.4


5. Farmers and ranchers
Fatality rate: 39.5


6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
Fatality rate:: 36.8


7. Roofers
Fatality rate: 34.4


8. Electrical power line installers and repairers
Fatality rate: 29.8


9. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers
Fatality rate: 22.8


10. Taxi drivers and chauffeurs
Fatality rate: 19.3

 

[UncleMike]

There are many dangerous jobs out there necessary to the functioning of our society that aren't government jobs. I know this will come off as unappreciative of LEO's, Firemen, and other emergency workers (not my intention), but why are they entitled to better benefits than those not working for the government?

Often what are considered dangerous jobs by society aren't too bad it's just the perception. When looking at fatality rates LE and others don't even rate. If you look at just hard numbers of deaths though LE comes in at around #4. I don't agree with all this pension crap either, that's what life insurance is for, I have a lot of it no reason for someone to not have it especially if they perceive themselves as in a high risk occupation. This whole PERF thing in IN gets me steamed anyway. When I moved here after my last mobilization that was my plan to find an LE job but found out about the age restrictions here, all based on PERF. Related to the original post, too bad you should have had insurance (maybe they did and just want more).

1. Fishers and related fishing workers
Fatality rate*: 128.9


2. Logging workers
Fatality rate: 115.7


3. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers
Fatality rate: 72.4


4. Structural iron and steel workers
Fatality rate: 46.4


5. Farmers and ranchers
Fatality rate: 39.5


6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
Fatality rate:: 36.8


7. Roofers
Fatality rate: 34.4


8. Electrical power line installers and repairers
Fatality rate: 29.8


9. Driver/sales workers and truck drivers
Fatality rate: 22.8


10. Taxi drivers and chauffeurs
Fatality rate: 19.3

It's not just another government job. They, LEO, EMT, Fire Rescue etc. risk their lives every day in service to the community. The pay sucks, the hours suck, and in most cases the benefits suck. NO ONE becomes an Emergency Responder for the crappy pension.
Not picking a fight.
Just stating the facts.
Mike

 

[Joe Williams]

It's not just another government job. They, LEO, EMT, Fire Rescue etc. risk their lives every day in service to the community. The pay sucks, the hours suck, and in most cases the benefits suck. NO ONE becomes an Emergency Responder for the crappy pension.
Not picking a fight.
Just stating the facts.
Mike

So do all the people in the jobs listed.

Not to mention convenience store workers, construction workers, coal miners, and on and on.

 

[hornadylnl]

It's not just another government job. They, LEO, EMT, Fire Rescue etc. risk their lives every day in service to the community. The pay sucks, the hours suck, and in most cases the benefits suck. NO ONE becomes an Emergency Responder for the crappy pension.
Not picking a fight.
Just stating the facts.
Mike

Pay and benefits can't be that bad if there are 5000 vying for those 15-25 jobs like RNM stated.