Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, June 14, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.
What concerns me most about the domestic partner bill is that it opens the door to fraud. I saw this while on active duty in the military.
People who just wanted benefits got married because the one who wasn’t in the service wanted free medical, travel and shopping at the post exchange, while the active-duty person wanted to live off base and collect extra money for that. In many cases these “couples” did not even live together.
I would like to hear the plans for actually checking up on domestic partners. Do they have to live together under the law? What happens when it is an open domestic relationship and one person has several partners? Can now anyone claim to be a partner?
What happens when one changes a partner every six months? Can the Nevada government give the people any assurances that there would be no fraud in this system and that no taxpayer money is wasted?
The people should know all of this.
Can the nevada government give any assurances that there will be no fraud in this system. LOL >>>>>YEA SURE WHAT EVER
What's stunning is that Mr. Scott fails to see the obvious flaw in his own argument. Until and unless Don't Ask Don't Tell ("DADT") is overturned by the courts or repealed by Congress, anyone "on active duty in the military" who entered into a Nevada DP with a person of the same sex and then attempted to secure benefits for that person would be promptly discharged from service. With regard to heterosexual couples entering into DPs, the entity granting the benefits is best suited to investigate the bona fides of the couple claiming the benefit. For example, someone trying to secure immigration benefits for their fiancee or married partner must persuade the Department of Homeland Security that the marriage is legitimate. Of course, since a DP isn't a marriage, stay tuned for years of future litigation to flesh out the reach and limits of a DP for state and federal benefit purposes. Eventually, gender-neutral marriage will come to be not because people change their minds--though that is clearly happening--but because all of the "not quite marriage" (NQMs) states like DPs, civil unions, etc., are a bureaucratic nightmare to administer for benefit and property ownership purposes.
LVLawyerGal -- "NQMs" is a good one, though "marriage lite" would be more apt.
Are you sure Nevada DPs would even apply in the military, since that is entirely under federal jurisdiction? The courts will have fun sorting out whether full faith and credit even apply.
This "flaw" can exist in "regular" marriages, not just domestic partnerships. People marry for green cards. People marry for tax benefits. And so on. Mr. Scott, you had better propose that the government investigate ALL partnerships that benefit from the state. And how far will you extend this? To "traditional" marriages that do not meet the definition of "family?" What about married heterosexual couples who do not have children? Isn't that an abuse of the system? Why should they get special privileges? Maybe we should pass a law that if a couple does not have a child within, say, 5 years (and this could include adoption), then that marriage must be nulled. Seriously, Mr. Scott, define your terms in this regard.
Those that are going to deceive will deceive. I imagine this will be a very small percentage.
Introducing fraud as a motivation into either DPs or marriages is irrelvant IF the partners themselves are not defrauded. Any government intervention is an invasion of the zone of privacy government by its very nature is forbidden to go.
As George Carlin said in his last live appearance, something to the effect of "there are no rights ... the government doesn't give a f*** about you or your rights, it's about power and expanding that power ..."
Yes, we ought to surveil all domestic partner applicants to ascertain that they are in fact domiciling together at the least, and/or fornicating. Nevada most certainly will NOT put up with any system abusers!
what las vegas lawyer gal doesnt get is this has nothing to do with being gay or straight, but i knew someone out there would bring that up, its about fraud period, whether gay or straight there will be fraud, that fact that i saw this in the military shows how easy it will be, but the state as of yet does not have a plan, the people need to see a plan,
Arthur:
Why are you so convinced that domestic partners will absolutely lead to "fraud" (and you're apparently unconcerned about "fraud" by heterosexual married couples?). Obviously, fraud involving heterosexual married couples is not uncommon--e.g. the "sham marriage for immigration benefits" which has been the subject of many a film. However, there's an easy answer to that--the agency in question giving the benefit looks for the fraud and if it finds it, refers it to prosecution by the proper authorities. Presumably, the same method will be adopted by state agencies in their benefit evaluations where DPs are concerned.
If, on the other hand, you think there's something special about "marriage" that makes it fraud-proof, there's a simple answer---remove Question 2 from the Nevada Constitution and permit gender neutral marriage and there will be no need for domestic partnerships.
i think domestic partnership period is a sham, and i believe that heterosexuals will in fact try more fraud than gays will by far, i hated seeing it in the military and i hate seeing it in the civilian world, i agree with your statement about the immigration and i cringe everytime i think about it, saw it alot overseas, marriage in and by itself is not fraud,you seem to want to bring sexual preference in on this and my letter never brought that up, why did you? as a taxpayer/business owner who pays more taxes i am concerned where all the money goes and i dont think that the state can afford to now just offer benefits to just anybody,BECAUSE they say they are a partner, and i agree with you on this to, i think they should let everybody marry, forget that gender neutral thing, hey if you want to get married get married, but everybody has to go through the same divorce hell, property division ect, and i hope the agency that handles this has the manpower,, ok person power lol, to oversee that its rules are abided by, but i have yet to see that in the welfare dept so i doubt that will happen, i see another wasted govt agency wasteing more money period