Bush admin tool cites 'Chuck and Larry' defense to deprive same-sex couple fed benefits

Time to watch the movie

Actually they don't get married. They register as domestic partners and it was so that he could alter his insurance to protect his kids since he failed to do so when his wife died. And the insurance woman even tells him that he could get a fraudulent opposite-sex marriage to make the change but he refuses to do so.

Still wasn't impressed with the film though.

Then again them railing against fraudulent marriages just falls into their basic routine of "Do as we say, ignore what we do."

watashi no yomeiri wa doko desu ka

---

by: belfrieboi @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:11:32 AM CST

?

But I thought they did do a marriage - in Canada.  Isn't that where the rather offensive Rob Schneider character came into play?

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:19:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hm,

must have blocked that scene from my memory...

They did but I think, if I remember correctly, it was after they were advised that someone would check up on them and they needed to make it look more legitimate.

watashi no yomeiri wa doko desu ka

---

by: belfrieboi @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 13:22:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As Stephanie Miller would say on her show

Thank You for playing Grasping For Straws!

or

Thank You for playing Really Bad Analogies!

Besser ein ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne ende

---

by: becca @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:16:28 AM CST

This gives me hope in a perverse way...

If THIS is the best argument BushCo and associated sheeple can raise, then we really are close to success.

Because the average person, or the average 5 year old, can point out the (multiple) flaws in this argument.

---

by: lyonside @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:40:52 AM CST

This same canard was thrown at companies who enacted DPB years ago...

Haven't seen any evidence of fraud or abuse yet -- and I'm willing to bet you won't find it.

But fact-based reasoning isn't a hallmark of any Bush official.

The sad part is that they don't get called to the carpet on this crap immediately in these hearings and their congressional testimony is used later in the typical false-equivalency strawman arguments that the right always engages in.

The biggest obstacle to same-sex couples wanting partnership benefits is how these benefits (unlike the same for married heteros) are treated as imputed income and taxed -- making them problematic for many families that need the health-care coverage (gotta get braces for the kids!) but then wind up with a huge tax bill.

---

by: txmichael @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 08:46:42 AM CST

Yes, this is great fun.

We are currently playing the entertaining game of "will the credit I get for not turning down insurance this year cover what we will pay in taxes for putting me on her plan, given that we are in two different federal tax brackets since we can't get married?" And if not, is it worth what we will save in the lower copays for doctor visits and prescriptions on her plan? And the peace of mind since her job is one that will not disappear in a lousy economy, where mine is more likely to be on the chopping block?

I realize we are rather fortunate to have this as a concern at all. In addition to both of us having medical insurance in the first place, we both work for companies that would provide insurance coverage for the other (though we're still waiting on the one year after moving in together on mine, where hers will extend benefits based on our lease and proof of financial interdependence). Universal health care would eliminate this concern almost completely. Then I'd just be annoyed that she can't get the gym membership through my work yet whereas my heterosexual colleagues' spouses can immediately. Fairness in gym membership is a different fight than paying unequal federal and state taxes.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:29:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Should we remove fed benefits from heterosexual couples because some marry under false pretenses in order to obtain a green card for the immigrant spouse?"

Yes.

If the Bush administration has taught us anything, it is that we can't be too careful.

We have a doctrine that supports invading countries as a preemptive measure.

We had to imprison people at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because they might be dangerous. We have the right to do this even if we can't - or won't - prove they have done anything wrong.

We had to invade Iraq because they might have had weapons of mass destruction.

We had to have wiretaps on American citizens without going through the Foreign Intelligence Security Act courts because there might be evidence of terrorist activity.

We had to be able to search records of stores and libraries - and require those who maintained those records to remain silent about the searches under penalty of imprisonment - because there might be evidence of terrorist activity.

So it has been pretty well established that, if there is a potential for problems, we must take immediate action to prevent the problems.

We must end marriage.

If we allow anyone to marry, the terrorists win.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:03:05 AM CST

Arguments like this are why it's so damn hard to get DPB in the first place

My company lays out stipulations of "must live in the same house, must have already lived together for at least a year, be in a loving, committed relationship, be financially interdependent, can't have been anyone else's DP for at least a year". NONE of those are criteria for heterosexual marriage benefits. They just have to produce a piece of paper from the state one time, whereas any time my address changes I have to re-produce a new lease with both our names on it to prove we still live together. They can get married and divorced multiple times in the same year and file for benefits the next day, I have to sit on my hands and hope nothing bad happens for at least 12 months because, you know, all us queers are just so promiscuous and prone to committing fraud.

When I brought up the inherent discrimination in these criteria, my HR told me, "Well...you know...we don't want people fraudulently claiming benefits." As though no straight couple ever entered into a sham marriage in which they hated each other, didn't live together, and weren't monogamous. And since when did straight people have to get married, then WAIT A YEAR to get things like insurance coverage, health care, and inheritance rights?

buddybuddy.com has a lot of good resources on state by state DPB/civil unions/marriage rights and benefits. Check it out.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:09:54 AM CST

Let's base more policy on Adam Sandler movies

Any suggestions?

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:49:31 AM CST

Instead of the inheritance (or "death") tax

we use Billy Madison's example that heirs must repeat grades 1-12 before they an inherit their fortunes. This will ensure maturity on the parts of the heirs and employment for teachers.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:52:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

To resolve the mortgage crisis

we encourage homeowners to have their hockey-playing grandchildren take up golf to win the money to pay the note, just like in Happy Gilmore.

---

Claim to fame: Posted first PHB diary to be demoted

---

by: cindik @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 09:55:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What a hoot!

Chuck and Larry...you have to be kidding me.

I would venture that one of the more common types of insurance fraud happens when couples divorce on good terms. Names don't change and papers don't get updated so one (former) spouse can continue to receive medical benefits.

I've seen it happen in my place of business.

---

by: pb1025 @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 10:41:57 AM CST

Weizmann is second in command

at the  U.S. Office Of Personnel Management.  It's an appointed position which must be confirmed by Congress...
I'm HOPING this means bye bye come January.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM CST

I love the contention that no queers want benefits anyway.

If you cover your eyes and ears and pretend we don't exist, of course you have no idea of what any of us may desire or need.

---

by: one jewish dyke @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM CST

Nutballs

"Christians" need to step out of Fiction Land.  

There's not many straight guys out there willing to pretend to be a gay couple, except maybe when one of them is trying to avoid a past lousy lay when he runs into her at a bar.  

Two straight guys actually going through with getting legally married?  Yeah, I'm sure straight women will find that attractive as part of their background.

Nothing but bullshit.  

Is there a meth lab in the White House?

---

by: bluegrassfool @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 13:05:07 PM CST

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

My, but aren't the fundies going to an awful lot of contortions just to show how mindless they can be?  Why bother, anyway, since the rest of us already know...


Hate stops a beating heart.

---

by: KarenS @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 14:57:06 PM CST

Human Rights Campaign has email to OPM

Thanks for the pointer to Think Progress, which had a pointer to the Human Rights Campaign email from federal employees to the OPM. I sent one to the OPM acting director because as a federal employee one thing I have learned is that a flood of emails DOES get noticed.  Sometimes ignored, but noticed. So, trite to say but anyone who knows a federal employee please send them a pointer to HRC and say to send an email to the OPM acting director.  And, you know, if you are NOT a federal employee you can point out that the federal govt is less attractive because of its discriminatory policies. Lets have a big pile of emails waiting for the new administration. Which can not get into place soon enough.

Here is the HRC pointer for emailing OPM:
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org...  

---

by: mea @ Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 22:27:39 PM CST

FRAUD? FRAUD? REALLY?

I saw Chuck and Larry.

Both Chuck and Larry work hard at their jobs and earned their benefits. But Republican S.O.B.'s who want to limit spending create hoops to jump through in order to get the benefits earned.

Fuck these bastards.  

This is moral and immoral. The moral thing, the thing that everyone knows is right inside, though some are afraid to say, is EQUALITY. Inequality is immoral.

---

by: mickdansforth @ Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 06:55:05 AM CST