unintended consequences

Arizona Cuts Off Benefits For Unmarried Heteros, But Not Gays

A court ruling in July that blocked of Arizona (read: Gov. Jan Brewer)r from stripping health benefits from the partners of same-sex state employees didn’t have the same beneficial outcome for the state’s unmarried straight couples: Arizona is canceling their benefits, as well as those for the adult children of state employees. Which means efforts like those of Republican State Rep. John Kavanagh — “It’s my belief that the state should not sanction heterosexual or homosexual relationships out of marriage … It’s morally wrong, costly to the state and prone to abuse” — have only impacted breeders. Well done sir!

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #arizona #healthcare #janbrewer stories and more


  • Snownova

    This is bad, very bad. This will give the pundits lots of ammo pointing at this and claiming that gays want to be a protected class with special privileges, rather then just equality.

  • SteamPunk

    “The state was prevented from taking benefits away from gay couples because of the new federal health care law…”

    I didn’t know there was a provision in the new health care law that required that. Learn somethin’ new every day. On the downside, this probably give conservative states more ammo to rule the new health care law unconstitutional :(

  • Ian

    This is what happens when discrimination against a particular minority is legislated. I see no problem against denying any state employee from getting their unmarried partner on state benefits. The problem is that same-sex couples are barred from marrying while their heterosexual counterparts not. If a straight state employee wishes for his or her partner to be covered under the states health insurance they can get f*cking married. Their gay co-workers don’t have that option. So by discriminating against gay couples in one area; marriage, the court ruled that discrimination places an undue burden on gay couples who have to buy two health plans instead of being covered under one. So the result is while the state can deny the unwed partners of its straight employees from receiving benefits because they can get married if they wish it’s gay employees don’t have that option. The court ruled gay couples can get coverage under a “domestic partner” designation. The solution to this is simple: end same-sex marriage discrimination and allow all consenting adults to marry whom they wish, period.

  • jason

    This serve hetero’s right. They’re the ones who prevent us from getting married in the first place. This discriminatory benefits provision simply reflects the discrimination that hetero’s impose on us in the first place.

  • adman

    See how heteros have degraded their relationships? They should get some self control and quit screwing like dogs in heat for once. How does it feel knowing that your homohatred has directly contributed to your own family’s status is society? It’s not fun, is it? Oh, and where are all the Repuke, supposedly “gay” apologists today? Out hoarding all the bandwidth for Jesus somewhere else, I guess.

Comments are closed.