Via We Talk Sex Blog here’s a silly story about domestic partnerships. This one’s about the University of Florida trying to get their employees to affirm that they’ve had sex with their domestic partners in the last 12 months in order to be eligible for coverage.
It raises a bunch of sticky issues (ok, in this case non-sticky issues.) First of all it differentiates unmarried couples from married ones since some measurable fraction of long-term couples can go for years without having sex yet the married ones will automatically be eligible anyway. It also kind of leaves the hormonally impaired, the infirm, (some of) the elderly, the impotent, the sexually traumatized, and the asexual in the lurch.
Read about it here.
UF Requirement For Partner Benefits: You Must Have Sex!
University of Florida employees have to pledge that they’re having sex with their domestic partners before qualifying for benefits under a new health care plan at the university.The partners of homosexual and heterosexual employees are eligible for coverage under UF’s plan, which will take effect in February. The enrollment process began this month, and some employees have expressed concern about an affidavit that requires a pledge of sexual activity.
Fielding questions about the pledge at a Faculty Senate meeting Thursday, UF’s vice president of human resources said he’s heard concerns about the affidavit, though overall feedback about the plan has been positive.
“I would say 95 percent of the affidavit is fine,” Kyle Cavanaugh said in an interview after the meeting.
In addition to declaring joint financial obligations, prospective enrollees must “have been in a non-platonic relationship for the preceding 12 months,” according to the affidavit.
Marylou Behnke, a UF senator, told Cavanaugh she found the requirement “offensive.”




Submitted by 587 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-01-25 18:57.
so does this mean they want pics and/or video of the act? time and date stamped? the act itself witnessed by a third party? while some domestic partners would have no issue with this...others, are not so open with what happens behind closed doors...
seems a bit ridiculous to me...
peace...
[Yes, rediculous. Thanks, Monkey. --fl]
Submitted by 587 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-01-25 20:35.
Well, in North Carolina, a female dispatcher quit after being harassed by her superior because she was *gasp* LIVING IN SIN. Her superior issued her an ultimatum to get married or get a new job. She quit and filed suit.
While prying into people's sex lives in order to give them benefits makes me raise an eyebrow, it is, however, refreshing to find a place that's giving same-sex partner benefits and cohabiting partner benefits. You don't have to be married to have a satifying and legitimate long-term relationship. Sadly, the rest of the South (much less the country) hasn't taken hold of that concept yet.
[Correct, nor does marriage ensure satisfaction. For what it's worth I'm pretty sure the university was motivated not by a desire to police people's bedroom habits but to put pressure on people from giving friends "domestic partnership" status just so they'd qualify for health benefits. Or, put another way, if we had a different healthcare system this particular kerfuffle wouldn't have come up. Thanks, Rae. --fl]
Submitted by 587 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-01-25 20:43.
That is bizarre. Leave it to Florida. ;-) It does raise the interesting puzzle of how we want to delimit "partnership" as a society. Take the non-platonic out of that statute and that leaves the financial which seems inadequate as well. We need some better ideas about this, obviously.
[Yup. On the other hand, virtually all government and business policies regarding marriage revolve around economics rather than romance. Some of my libertarian friends argue, I think correctly, that that should be the extent of government or business involvement. Thanks, Gander. --fl]
Submitted by 587 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-01-25 22:12.
my friend, who is jewish, is getting married in a few months. She told me that's it's a condition of the marriage contract that the husband *must keep* his wife sexually satisfied!
[Oh yeah, it's right there in the Old Testament which binds not only Jews but Christians and (to a significant degree) Moslems. If he neglects you for more than 30 days the marriage can be dissolved. Thanks, M. --fl]