Hey you legal minded people

[abcdefz]

This is kind of funny to me.

So I get to work this morning and there's an insurance memo on my desk announcing that my employer has added a domestic partner supplement to our insurance. Fair enough.

One of the requirements is that "Both partners are (a) 18 years of age or older and (b) of the same or different sex."

"The same or different sex"!? What the hell else is there?

I just can't fathom what must have come up which required clause (b) to be added or what human it would exclude.

Just curious if anyone has a tip on this one.


This post is not soliciting legal advice nor binding advice pursuant to any level of expertise any Replyer may or may not have extended to but not necessarily including his or her or its family or origin of state nor exclusive imperity iterruptus. Offer not good in OK, UT, or OR.

[Yeti]

Is it because same sex marriage is not recognized in most states? I guess they put the clause in so non-married couples-- straight or gay-- can put their partner on the policy.

Your company must be very progressive.

[abcdefz]

Yeah, no, I get that -- it's to cover couples who aren't married, straight or gay. What I don't get is why spell out "of the same or different sex"? What else is there?

It just seems weird to define something which can't possibly be anything else. They might as well have a provision that says the partners must be human, if they want to make sure they've covered all the bases.

[Yeti]

I think "same sex" is the key phrase in the addendum.

I bet this is very rare that policies allow same sex partners to co-exist on the same insurance..........or am I wrong?

[Bob]

I think "same sex" is the key phrase in the addendum.

I bet this is very rare that policies allow same sex partners to co-exist on the same insurance..........or am I wrong?

that would be my guess...if you don't mention it at all, one could potentially make the argument that it's implied that they have to be opposite sex, since that's what it usually means. i'm not saying that argument would win, i'm just saying it could be made.

but, if you explicitly allow same-sex couples, then it ends all debate. it just makes it less ambiguous than it would be if you said nothing at all.

contracts are better when they're not ambiguous, that seems to be what i'm learning this year

[abcdefz]

Ah. I get it.

So often I give the human race more credit than it deserves. Fuckers.

[Dr Deaf]

if they didn't include different sex; the hermaphrodite and transgendered would feel isolated / excluded.

[Documad]

It's funny that with all the fuss about gay marriage in the press, there's a quiet revolution going on in the US. Employers have been expanding domestic partner benefits, and soon no nationally-ranked employer will even consider denying them.

And while judges can't legally marry same sex couples, judges can hear their disputes over property and custody when the couples break up.

[Yeti]

I just read on CNN's website that a fertility clinic in Cali is catering exclusively to gay male couples. They can even pick the sex of the child before insemination.

[Yeti]

I was talking to my wife and her policy does not have a stipulation for same sex partners.
I think a homosexual act between 2 individuals is immoral unless it is 2 chicks.

[abcdefz]

I think it needs to be rooster/hen for it to work.

[BangkokB]

Words from the Wise: "You're only in the wrong if you get caught"