I am also concerned to hear that ATMP privileges some relations over others, based on their function. Uh oh. I worry that my relationships (simple friendships, and not living together) might not make the cut? Why are people having “the right kind” of relationship with someone who has benefits to bestow entitled to unearned benefits, while someone not having the “right kind” of relationship with such a person not entitled?

As for “our campaign for plus-one federal employee benefits” — O.K., so employees will be able to name any one adult person to receive benefits. But what about someone who is not lucky enough to be named by anyone for benefits? This is also discrimination based on “relational status” as I’ve discussed in the previous paragraph. Health care or any other benefits should not depend on being lucky enough to be named by someone with benefits to bestow.

Best,
Jim Larson

But over the past years, including the past year, I’ve seen innumerable times on ATMP-TALK when you and others favorably post about expansion of Domestic Partner benefits without any consideration or even a mention for those — the uncoupled — who will have to pay for them. I’ve pointed this out many times. If I was wrong or misreading ATMP policy, you might have pointed that out to me then.

Likewise, I see ATMP supporting gay marriage, which is fine, but I never see any mention of the gay (and straight) unmarrieds who will have to pay for these benefits.

Thank you for all your work,
Jim Larson

When AtMP says “unmarried” we are very conscious of who’s included. I urge you not to read couples into our fact sheets and proposals unless they are really there. We are still looking for the perfect terminology. Our board has long conversations about the meaning of marital, relationship and conjugal status discrimination. We feel strongly that it is wrong to privilege some relationships over others simply because of their names. However, we do see a role for laws that treat some relationships differently from others because of their function, and we do see a role for society to protect dependents when their relationships end. Until we find the perfect phrase, I’ll keep describing our work as fighting marital status discrimination and proposing alternatives that focus on the function of a relationship not its sexual or intimate character.

I am sick and tired of everything being framed in terms of married vs. unmarried. The real problem in this country, and ATMP, is COUPLEMANIA – that all couples should get benefits and to heck with the uncoupled.

DAMMIT ATMP. We uncoupled are 7/8 of the unmarried.