Should gay troopers' partners receive death benefits?

The Post-Dispatch has an article about the late Cpl. Dennis Engelhard, a gay Missouri trooper who was killed during a traffic accident on Christmas, while he was on-duty. The Justice Department might pay a large benefit to Engelhard's partner, but he won't receive similar payments from Missouri.

Under the rules of the state pension system that covers the Missouri Highway Patrol and Department of Transportation workers, if a trooper dies in the line of duty, his or her spouse is eligible for lifetime survivor benefits.

The yearly benefit is equal to half of the officer's average salary during the officer's highest-paid three years as a trooper. For Engelhard, the benefit would have been $28,138 a year. But Missouri pension law is clear about defining a spouse, recognizing only a marriage between a man and a woman.

In their defense, officials say they've never paid benefits to long-term girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. of straight troopers, either. The rule has always been that benefits go to a spouse.

Comments

[Keith G. in P.V.]

In a technical and legal sense, the Missouri pension system is correct. It pays these benefits only to married spouses.

On the other hand, there is no provision in Missouri to legally recognize a spousal relationship between 2 men or 2 women.

You can argue against "gay marriage" or "civil unions" until the cows come home. The fact is, it pits on group's religious opinion over another group's religious opinion.

There are rights, obligations, tax and other consequences conferred on spousal relationships which are of concern to the state. The only legitimate argument I can think of in this case is that recognizing "gay marriages" might reduce the state's tax income.

[Searching]

I havent seen any reduction in taxes since I have been married.. so, I am not really getting the last part of your statement.

[Doc]

How sad that "gay" makes such a difference. I'm sure that in the eyes of the dead trooper, his partner was his "spouse". It's just hatred, bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance that made them a non-couple.
Yes, gay trooper's partner's should get death benefits. His family deserves the same benefits as that of a straight trooper. They are the same. Troopers. Who they "partner" with is immaterial.

[Searching]

How do you know he considered them his spouse? Lots of people live together that dont want to be married, or arent ready to be married. So, you dont know anything of the kind.
Actually, domestic partner of any kind, cant get the benefits. So, they are not discriminating.. you're live in, no matter what the gender is exempt.

[Pub17]

And Missouri law prevents a man and a man from being anything but a domestic partner, Searching, which is the question at hand. What's your point?

[Brian]

This is exactly why I moved from Oklahoma (and took my $100,000/year income with me). I highly recommend it for anyone with the means to do it.

[Chris]

@Searching Read Pub17's comment, and in light of it, aren't you being mean-spirited to a state trooper killed in the line of duty? If you say gay couples can't get married, or even form civil unions in MO, then say because they haven't they can't have even death benefits when killed on the job protecting public safety..........it seems pretty nasty of you to be honest.

[Eldon]

This is 2010 in America. Yes he should get the benefits. They were a couple for fifteen years. I hope this law changes. We as a society have to accept things that are not necessarily our thoughts or views. I know I am only speaking for me but wake up and realize that this is another government controlling too much of our lives. Smaller government means stronger people.

[D-man]

Brian,
I fail to make the connection of this case to the state of Oklahoma. I also fail to make the connection as why anyone cares what you make annually.
The only thing that I know about Oklahoma is that they have stranger liquor laws than Kansas, but they have Whattaburger... So those two cancel each other out.

As far as this case goes, I don't think that he should be awarded survivor's death benefits because he was not legally bound to that person via a legal contract such as a marriage certificate. If they were to make such a thing for homosexuals and call it a civil union or gay marriage or whatever then I think that they should have rights. But to have the benefits of marriage without the binding agreement which has consequences aside from financial gain is hypocritical.

[Duh!]

At my job, I sign a form naming who will receive my benefits (accidental death insurance, etc.) if I die. It can be anybody I want, spouse, relative, friend, whomever. Why can't the state do this? That way, whether you're hetero or gay, you can give your benefits to whom you want. It takes the religion equation out of it.

[Roy]

Ah, the poison of religion. Can't live with it. Can't live with it.
Still, it helps keep bigotry, ingnorance, fear, and loathing alive from one generation to the next. So I guess it can't be all bad.

[I]

Right you are Roy, but it can be all bad. I have my partner on my insurance at work as beneficary but as for my pension he will get NONE of it.

[AG]

Until the marriage thing is sorted out, I think if people do not have a spouse, they ought to be able to designate one other person -- partner, child, parent, friend, etc., to be their beneficiary for insurance, and death benefits. This would be fair, but it would cost someone some money, so it ain't gonna happen anytime soon...

[BrianVincent]

It makes a lot more sense that a taxpayer financed entity not give death benefits to any partner or spouse in the first place. A department funded life insurance policy could have been "designated" to any partner, spouse, best friend or even one's mother at will... after all, if someone lives with and takes care of his mother, isn't she his domestic partner?

[Jimmy]

"In their defense, officials say they've never paid benefits to long-term girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. of straight troopers, either. The rule has always been that benefits go to a spouse."

What defense is that? It's pure discrimination to put out a statement of that regard, because they state that you'd have to be a "straight" married couple in order to receive it. Domestic partners should be entitled to ALL the benefits that married couples are given, end of story.

Furthermore, with the Feds ready to give this late Trooper's partner his benefits, it seems to me that the Feds are discriminating as well, based on the fact that they do not give domestic partner benefits to the rest of the US citizens.

[ghost]

Since the "death benefits" were meant for the married woman and man, usually with kids, should not be given to this man's "partner". It was actually started to support a surviving wife and children. Live in boyfriends and girlfriends should NOT get it. How about we stop them for everyone. Just give them the insurance they pay for and that can be left to anyone they wish...BUT death benefits for Law Enforcement, Fire and other public services is a whole different animal.

[kybo61]

This is exactly the kind of travesty that cries out for gay marriage. If these two men had been able to get married they probably would have, especially since one of them was in a a high-risk profession and the other was in poor health. It makes good sense, and hetero couples do it all the time. I married my husband in 1997, for similar reasons (he worked day labor and soon got sick, I had a high-paying job and excellent health insurance, and he eventually died after more than $1 million in hospital bills and life flights etc). This couple is no different than any other and deserves to be given the same opportunities, services, choices and rights as any other. Their gender does NOT matter. It's time for gay marriage to be federally mandated.

[parkay]

No sodomy benefits of any kind.

[Davey Smith]

Wave your bigot flag parkay. Your post was disgusting, but at least it shows us how your mind works.

[JUNGLE JIM]

The real benefits of sodomy are that those that enjoy it piss parkay (Mrs. Phillllll Kiline) off. It's nice to know that fake-butter has such a perfect and moral life that she only has all the time in the world to tell others how they should live.

[cripjak]

Parkays had another meltdown. My day's complete.

[K in Newfoundland]

If the couple lived here in Canada, the bereaved partner would have qualified for pension benefits. Come on, America, let's catch up with the rest of the world's democracies and recognize equal rights for gay persons. It's time to live up to the real meaning of We the People and your Constitution.

[Jasun Mark]

The gleeful disrespect poured on the heads of gay couples makes me sick. Writing off a man's husband of 15 years as "a boyfriend" is vile.

It's just disgusting that Britney Spears can stagger drunk into a chapel is Vegas and get married "as a joke" to some guy she knew in high school and get more rights and privileges than gay and lesbian couples who build lives and homes together over the course of decades.

[cls]

Equality before the law should not be denied, even is some very bigoted people think it should.

[Ruth]

Marriage is between a man a a women. Commom sense tells one that. The gay lifestyle is imoral and should not be reconized as a marriage or spouse.

[Searching]

None of you, can prove that he intended to marry his boyfriend. You have only the whining of the survivor to base your claim on.

Chris, I am not being "mean spirited" I am stating he law. The same law the would apply to a girlfriend.

You all are basing your judgement and your opinions on a sick guy, who's lover just died and is playing.. dare I say it.. the sexual orientation card, to get benefits, that would not be allowed a girlfriend either.

True, they could never be married, but none of you have proof, if they could, they ever would have. This is just another special interest group, feeding off someone's death, for their own political purposes... Not to mention, a sick gay guy, who needs some cash, and just lost his meal ticket ...give me a break.

[FlyBoyGA]

The problem is not with the Missouri State Pension System-- it's with Missouri not allowing Gay Marriage. This guy will not see a dollar of his partners pension but he can use this a launching pad to allowing Gay Marriage in Missouri.

People who don't support gay marriage should take that fight up with their church, not the state. Can you not hire someone because they're gay? Fire someone because they're gay? Ban someone entry into the P&L District because they're gay? Maybe the last one, but not the other two! (had to lighten the tension with some humor)

@kybo61 -- Be careful with the 'federal mandate' talk. Those mandates are most of the problems that we the people have today... You probably meant, "The Supreme Court should rule that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional." This would set the precedent for all states to follow. (except Illinois of course-- Google Chicago Handgun Ban)

[FlyBoyGA]

@Searching -- Throttle back partner... You're right that he should not be entitled to any pension under Missouri's current law. However, your 'proof' argument can be equally applied to you as well; you don't know if they've been wanting to get married but legally couldn't. While you bring a valid point about the law, you undermine yourself with attacks on special interest.

[Searching]

Since, there is no proof either way, you have just supported my point.
The fact he is sick, also supports my point. So, since there is sooooo much activism, and you are sooo convinced this is what he wanted, show ME the pictures, and literature, that he was so desparate to marry his sick partner.. that this partner is being denied rights that he should have had.

See, here's the problem. It is being said, AFTER he died that this is what HE wanted. Yet, I see no proof, other than someone, that he never even tried to marry, saying that's what he wanted.
Near as I can tell it was his dirty little secret, and as long as the bills were paid, and his partner was cool with it.
My taxes are supposed to go for what, again?

[Searching]

Show me paperwork, where he even attempted, or complained that his "life partner" couldnt be his beneficiary.

[FlyBoyGA]

Searching... I don't know if you miss interpreted my comments but I was agreeing with you; he is not entitled to to his partners pension.

And I haven't proved your point-- you have not proved to anyone that such forms don't exist, just like no one has proved to you that they do. That was my point.

[MKS]

Wow. I think it's pretty clear that the law doesn't provide for Cpl. Engelhard's partner to receive his state pension.
But that doesn't make it right.
His partner does work (try reading the article), but that's beside the point.
The point is that if anyone that commented here was injured in an accident in Missouri and Cpl. Engelhard happened to be the first responder on the scene, he wouldn't be a "gay trooper" or someone conspiring to upset the social balances of society. No, he would be the person risking his life in order to save yours (something that I'm sure no one would debate, considering the premise of this story).
Anyway, this is a glaring example of why the sticky term "marriage" goes beyond church in this country and has real implications in areas like this. While Cpl. Engelhard's partner will not receive a state benefit because they were not married (and no, we can't prove that they would have been), this public servant should have at the very least had the opportunity to unite with his partner in some sort of legally recognized relationship that didn't put anyone in this situation.
Call it what you want (marriage, domestic partners, civil union...whatever) and let churches choose which relationships they wish to recognize, but do NOT impede on this trooper's right to have his loved ones receive a pension.
Again, go back to that hypothetical accident. Then think whether the trooper risking his life to save yours shouldn't be able to provide for his loved ones if he does make that sacrifice.

[James Probis]

It's just sad that Engelhard lost his life serving and protecting the scum who have so little respect as to spit on his corpse.

How can people be evil enough to deny a couple the right to marry, then claim the fact they weren't married after 15 YEARS together proves they were somehow not a real couple. They were not married- and that is entirely because of bigoted scum like some of the folks commenting here.

Have fun dancing on the grave of someone who dedicated their life to serving people like you.

[BC II]

I am a parent of a gay daughter. I love her as much as my other children.
Personally if I would make another choice for her but that isn't my choice.
Her partner and she live as any couple would. They work, pay bills and support each other through hardships. My daughter is presently in school and her partner made is possible for her to do this.
Any spousal benefits should be given to my daughter or her partner as much as a married hetero couple. The state has pony up a proper definition for committed couple outside of traditional marriage and how they should be recognized and receive these types of benefits. It is the right thing to do.

[Seth Oakman (son of a state trooper)]

@ Ruth, Ben, etc. who question his desire to marry his partner

Officer Engelhard was with his partner for FIFTEEN years. He helped his partner Kelly Glossip (a man) raise his son Zac (from a previous relationship).

They are a FAMILY. Officer Englehard was with his partner LONGER than he was in service as an officer. I think this speaks all that needs to be said about their commitment to each other.

Additionally, the purpose of the funds (to help a surviving spouse raise and maintain their children and family) would be used to that extent.

Some straight couples get married within months of meeting each other. It doesn't exempt the couple from benefits based on the fact that in many eyes this hypothetical couple are not ready for marriage.

Fifteen years. That is at least a sixth of the average human's lifespan. I do not understand how you can possibly be so disrespectful, spiteful, or stubborn to even possibly rationalize your bigoted arguments.

Yes, they weren't married. But they had no other choice in the state of Missouri.

I'm embarrassed and ashamed of you all for doing such a disservice to an officer of your country as well as his loving family. You should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves.

[Realist]

This is a tough one for the jackboot kissers - they mostly hate gays every bit as much as they love cops. How do they unquestioningly support anything the cops want in this case without also supporting gays? What to do, what to do . . .

[Searching]

Choices.. that is an interesting word. This man I am sure was a wonderful man. he chose a life of public service and he died in the line of duty. This is a horrible tragic event, I am sure his family is grieving and yeah, these comments probably arent helping.

But the other choice he made, hindered his ability to get married, and have kids of his own.
Choices made by the others in the gay community got this situation to the point where it is today.

Instead of putting all their energy and money into enacting civil unions, they first decided to attack the churches, and challange their concept of a religious ceremony.
They attacked them personally, and then tried to force it politically, and legally.
So, with this alternative lifestyle they chose, if they had decided instead to push for a legal definition of family, for tax and benefits purposes(like theyare doing NOW), they would have made it by now.

But when you choose to attack institutions, long protected by the PEOPLE, instead of forming your own, you will run into great resistence.

You cant blame the masses, for the error in judgement to try and take by force, something that isnt yours to take.

[An Actual Realist]

@Realist - Choice? Please detail for us the exact moment you chose to be straight. Assuming you're a male, when did you sit yourself down and say, "well, I'm equally attracted to breasts and a male member, but I choose only to go for breasts".

Of course you didn't, nor do gays. Sexual attraction is innate - you don't choose.

On the other hand, you do choose to be a bigot, and you've done that in spades.

But I am at least happy that you won't "take by force what isn't yours to take" when it comes to salvation in the afterlife. You're so hateful, God would never let you into his home.

[James Probis]

Not all churches are as bigoted as the one you apparently go to, Searching. Many fine religious institutions have absolutely no problem recognizing the love of two people, and will perform same sex marriages. Why should your sect get to decide that God hates fags while other churches that follow the actual teachings of Christ are not allowed to join a loving couple in holy matrimony?
This isn't about your pathetic little faction that celebrates hate rather than loving your neighbor as Jesus told us to do, it's about the actual real world suffering of actual living breathing human beings.

The real problem is that bigots like you prevent loving couples from marrying and then have the unmitigated gall to attack them in their grieving because they weren't married. The law in it's wisdom prevents the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges, but only a misanthrope glories in the inequality.

You whine about religion being attacked while you spit on a man's corpse. I'm glad people like you are so incredibly sheltered from the reality of discrimination that you can whine about things like this, because as sick as it is at least it means you haven't suffered the kind of actual discrimination gay people in this country face every day. Because of people like you.

[I]

To Searching.......Choose to be gay for a week. Can you? NO. Would you want a gay person to marry a STR8 one just for the sake of having children..Prob. not. When did you choose the alternative lifestyle to be STR8?

[James Probis]

This case demonstrates the fundamental dishonesty of the anti-gay types. They claim they don't want to hurt anyone, that they are only interested in "tradition" (never mind that the "tradition" they claim to be defending has no legitimate history as tradition, the freaking BIBLE lists hundreds of polygamous marriages...) yet they are entirely unable to prevent themselves from squealing with glee whenever gay people are actually harmed by the idiocy they spew. People like Searching are barely able to contain themselves from dancing on Engelhard's grave. The loving comment about AIDS demonstrates exactly where these evil people are actually coming from: they quite simply hate gays. They hate them and want them to suffer.
When asked "who is my neighbor?" These people would walk by a suffering man.

[Malcom...in the...Middle]

Your comments...when I read them...are so...broken up with...commas that if...I pause...everytime you insert...a misplaced comma...I think I'm reading...the words of...Stevie Kenarban...from...

[Vibiana]

It's true that not every straight couple wants to be legally married. Not every gay couple does either. But the ones who do should be able to, and the church should have nothing to do with deciding who gets to marry. Marriage is a social and legal contract between two people. Traditionally it's been between a man and a woman, but there is no reason not to allow it between same-sex couples.

If this couple had been able to be legally married, but had chosen not to, then yes, denying benefits makes sense. But after the fact, it is not fair to question the survivor's rights.

[Searching]

Say what you want. It is the way it is.
James, it is not a bigoted to comment to say that gays should be able to have civil unions, but instead chose to attack churches, and that is where they went wrong. It is a fact.

[Searching]

Another fact, you are the ones that have chosen to use the circumstances of this man's death to spread hatred, for your choices.

[James Probis]

The laws people like you pass are invariably worded vaguely specifically to prevent CIVIL UNIONS. You claim it's all about a word, then revel in the suffering of actual living, breathing human beings.
Scum like you campaign to prevent gays from being allowed to visit loved ones in the hospital in states that already ban same sex marriage. You revel in the fact that a surviving partner is denied death benefits in this very discussion. You are bigoted scum, and no kind of Christian Jesus would ever recognize.

[James Probis]

"Poor pitiful me! I'm being so discriminated against because people want to use a word to mean something other than what I think it means! This is the worst discrimination ever faced by man!
What? Some fag is being prevented from receiving death benefits? Serves him right!"
A brief summary of Searching's thoughts.

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnQsAwblEd4BkDkkKjVgs3Dn6UrkOXgOFk]

How many widows/widowers without children draw a pension benefit after their public employee spouse dies in the line of duty?

Doesn't matter if they married the day before death, or fifteen years later, does it?

But they may have "wanted to have children," right? All straight couples must have children, right?

The bogus argument that these two men didn't marry is pathetic.

And the survivor may end up costing taxpayers as much or more without survivor's benefits.

But "marriage" was "protected" by treating this couple unequal? Even more pathetic.

Americans don't know how to do anything right, anymore. Democracy is just too inconvenient a principle for a nation of bigots and hypocrites.

[JTinKC]

It's unfortunate that a good man lost his life in the line of duty and leaves behind a partner who is being vilified here on this blog and others. The situation stinks but under the (unfair) letter of the law, Mr. Glossip is entitled to nothing - yet another reason why getting out to vote is so important. "Sanctity of marrige", what a joke; Just another bigoted code phrase for "we don't like people who aren't like us".

It's been a few Sundays since I've been to church but if I remember correctly, Jesus spoke of love, tolerance, forgiveness and taking care of your neighbors.

Change is slow but action is required - vote the bigoted officials out of office. In the meantime we should keep Trooper Englehard's family and others like his in our thoughts and prayers and help out if we can.

For those of you spewing intolerance and hate, shame on you.

[James Probis]

I guarantee you that if civil unions were the law the exact same scum who are reveling in the fact this couple was prevented from marrying despite FIFTEEN YEARS spent together would be yeehawing it up that survivor benefits only apply to "married" couples, not civil unioned couples. Semantics and pharisaic legalistic nitpicking mean more to some people that the actual suffering of living, breathing human beings.