Absinthe & Cookies (a bit bitter, a bit sweet)

That's grossly discriminatory against homosexuals who want to remain virgins until they're married.

Sheesh...some days it seems like I've entered Bizarro World.

I certainly hope that they're also asking that terribly personal question of married people also. I wonder what they'll do if the married people aren't having sex?

Married people having sex?

Is that a requirement these days?

I don't recall that from when I was married.

While everyone is tongue in cheek on this one - from how I interpret the comments, I think the request is fine, since it applies to heterosexual and homosexual domestic partners who apply for benefits.

Discussions of marriage definition aside, marriage implies certain acts, obligations and responsibilities. Besides legal and financial obligations imposed on the parties for the benefit of the other, consortium (legal term for the sexual activities between married parties) is implicit in the marriage arrangement - otherwise the marriage is invalid -hence the ability to get an annulment if a marriage is not consummated.

By having the parties sign (presumably under penalties of perjury) that they are engaged in activities traditionally tied to the marriage rights seems fine. Particularly when you consider the "domestic partner”, arrangement developed from the argument that the parties would be married but the law forbids it. Without the requirement, friends, roommates, sibling, or parent/children who share residences for any other reason, including financial reasons could argue that they should be able to cover each other under the plan.

In fact, in MA a state Senator is proposing a law that would allow other groups who do not have a "sexual relationship" to get benefits -under the argument that the current "domestic partner laws discriminate based on sexual preference or sexual activity.

Personally, I think that Companies that offer health insurance should allow an employee to add as many "co-insured parties" as they like, as long as the employee is willing to pay the additional premium (and even a surcharge for a non-dependent) that they add to the policy. This would potentially give many more people access to health insurance. I know I would have willing to pay to cover my brothers when they had no health insurance.

Just my thoughts.