dojN001306.xml

dojN001306.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-02

Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:35 PM
Interim Final Rule

I have been keeping up with the comments submitted here and it seems that the majority fall into 3 categories:
(a) "form letters" lobbying for the inclusion of the gay/lesbian domestic partner as 'eligible'
(b) family members of a deceased victim who want MORE, MORE, MORE!
(c) the 'non-recipient taxpayer' - who find the amounts too high and the greed inexcusable

As far as (a), I say "go with state law". If gay/lesbian partnerships are treated the SAME as marriages by their state, then they should be here too. As should "common law" marriages. But "treated the SAME" should be all-encompassing - the state supports your right to participate in the "benefits" of recognition of your partnership, but also defines the restrictions/responsibilities on ending the relationship. If the state does not have any laws addressing terminating the partnership (divorce, child custody, probate, etc.), then it is NOT THE SAME as 'regular marriages', and those partnerships should not be recognized here either.

As far as (b), based on their behavior I would not give family members of a deceased victim anything. They have forfeited there 'right' to our compassion by being so unwilling to accept it graciously, respectfully, and QUIETLY. I keep hearing/reading statements of how 'we will be forced to sue' because the offered compensation is so limited. This is nothing more than a blatant threat (extortion?)- give me more or I'll sue everybody. Cut them off and let them go to court. Use the taxpayers money ONLY for the living - those victims who survived, but were injured (as defined in this rule). If you ABSOLUTELY INSIST on providing compensation to the 'family members of a deceased victim', I think you should go through all of your calculations, come up with one total, put it a pot, and then let them all fight over how to split it amongst themselves - ANY WAY THEY WANT TO!

As far as (c), obviously I agree! I do not like the precedent being set. I don't think it will be followed through on. I think Congress acted impulsively when enacting this. It was only 2 weeks after the event - too soon to be making such dramatic gestures. The whole country was still a little irrational/panicky about where things were headed and the number-of-victims-estimates were still inflated by over 100%. Now that things have settled down a bit and everyone, including Congress, has had some time to digest the event, perhaps you should go back to them and ask 'Do you really think this is a good idea?'. I hope they would respond 'No'.

Just me -
Individual Comment
Denver, CO

2002-01-02