Leave a Comment Sagesse
Employers consider requiring marriage for employees to receive partner benefits
July 9, 2011
By Adam Bink
Yesterday’s NYTimes goes into the situation facing some employees:
Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized in New York, at least a few large companies are requiring their employees to tie the knot if they want their partners to qualify for health insurance.
Corning, I.B.M. and Raytheon all provide domestic partner benefits to employees with same-sex partners in states where they cannot marry. But now that they can legally wed in New York, five other states and the District of Columbia, they will be required to do so if they want their partner to be covered for a routine checkup or a root canal.
On the surface, this appears to put the couples on an even footing with heterosexual married couples. After all, this is precisely what they have been fighting for: being treated as a spouse. But some gay and lesbian advocates are arguing that the change may have come too soon: some couples may face complications, since their unions are not recognized by the federal government.
“Even with the complications, many people will want to get married for the reasons people want to get married,” said Ross D. Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. “But from our perspective, to hinge something as important as insurance for your family to what is still a complicated legal matter for same-sex couples doesn’t seem to be a fair thing to do.”
He said that there were a variety of reasons — legal, financial and personal — that companies should keep the domestic partnership option at least until gay marriage was recognized at the federal level. Legally speaking, getting married could create immigration issues or it could potentially muddy the process of adopting a child. In some instances, he added, an employee may work in a gay marriage state but live in a neighboring state that does not recognize the marriage. The couple may want to wait to marry until they can be legally wed in their home state.
“There are certainly reasons why a couple may not wish to marry,” added Camilla Taylor, marriage project director at Lambda Legal. “People with certain immigration statuses might want to think very carefully before getting married. There are some types of visas that are meant to be temporary, and if you get married to someone who is a citizen, it could flag your renewal application and reflect your more permanent decision to stay.”
When it comes to adopting a child, couples may run into trouble if they are trying to adopt from a place that restricts same-sex married couples from adopting. Having one parent adopt while still single may be easier. “If you want to be able to answer honestly in paperwork, multiple interviews and background checks, then you won’t want to get married,” Ms. Taylor said, adding that many foreign countries ban adoptions to same-sex couples.
Marrying could also have serious implications for couples who relocate to a nonmarriage state, and ultimately decide to split up. Getting a divorce can be complicated, since one member of a couple may have to return to the gay marriage state and live there before their split can be completed.
The employers making the changes said they spoke regularly with their gay and lesbian employee groups and planned to phase in the requirement. Corning, based in Corning, N.Y., said it would offer a reasonable grace period, though it had not completed the details.
“After waiting so much time for that right, we want them to have the opportunity to enjoy that,” said Christy Pambianchi, a senior vice president for human resources at Corning, which put the policy into effect in New Hampshire and Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal there. She said employees did not raise concerns about the requirement. “They are delighted,” she said.
Raytheon, based in Waltham, Mass. — another state where gay marriage is legal — said it would give employees several months to comply with its marriage requirement. Like Corning and I.B.M., the company said domestic partner benefits would remain in states where couples cannot marry (Raytheon also has an exemption for active members of the military, so they are covered for benefits without having to marry. Getting married violates the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which is being phased out).
I.B.M., based in Armonk, N.Y., said its workers would have up to a year to get married to maintain their current benefits.
At least for now, these companies seem to be in the minority, though it is unclear whether more employers will follow their lead. Eastman Kodak, based in Rochester, said it would continue to offer domestic partner coverage to both same-sex and opposite-sex partners.
“My impression is that there has been lots of discussion about dropping domestic partner coverage when marriage is first opened up to same-sex couples, but very few employers actually end up taking this step,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, legal director at the Williams Institute, which studies sexual orientation law and policy issues. “Some employers initially believe that it is fairer of them to impose the same marriage requirements on all employees, regardless of sexual orientation. But then employees and others explain that employees with a same-sex life partner remain in difficult circumstances due to the continuing federal discrimination.”
Whether same-sex couples marry, they will still be responsible for paying federal income taxes on the value of their partner or spouse’s benefits since they are not recognized by the federal government as an economic unit, unless the person covered is considered a dependent. Couples will not owe those taxes at the state level in places like New York that recognize gay marriage.
In addition to the legal problems presented that may unfairly burden couples who do not wish to wed, there are many people who simply do not favor the institution of marriage for many different moral or personal reasons. Add that to the list of legal problems and you have a situation may be very difficult for many employees.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
62 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Bill S. | July 9, 2011 at 5:44 am
I love how getting married will flag same-sex couples' immigration statuses. The federal government recognizes same-sex marriage alright: they recognize it in ways that actively make it an inconvenience for gay couples.
2.
Alan | July 9, 2011 at 6:02 am
I appreciate that because we don't have marriage at the federal level, this could cause issues for some folks right now…. but it also strikes me as wanting to have your cake and eat it too… We've been fighting for marriage so we can be equal to straight people, but now we want domestic partnerships too, which straight people don't have!! Sounds unfair to me. When marriage is sorted out for us at the federal level, there should be just one institution of marriage for everyone – that's equality.
3.
CGS | July 9, 2011 at 6:14 am
We need to stand up against discriminatory policies like this, not just to protect same-sex couples, but also to protect straight ones — not everyone wants to get married or should get married, and they should not lose their benefits. Let’s make sure that, once we achieve equal rights, we don’t allow them to be used against others.
4.
CGS | July 9, 2011 at 6:19 am
P.S. to Alan — straight couples do have access to domestic partnership in many areas. If we make it marriage or nothing, it is actually even more discriminatory, since it eliminates choice and forces everyone into one type of institution in order to have access to the same rights and benefits. Hopefully, we’ll reach a point in our society where we don’t privilege married couples above all other partnerships. Until then, as my wife says, “If they’re giving out rights, I want some…”
5.
sneaks911 | July 9, 2011 at 6:55 am
It sounds like we are asking for special rights. In states where marriage is legal, companies should offer the same incentives for all employees.
As for Inter-Country adoptions, that won't change for awhile, and we shouldn't base what companies offer on what other countries allow.
Section 2 of DOMA is unconstitutional because an employee that gets married in state A, works in state A, and lives in state B (with state A offering equal marriage, and B not recognizing equal marriage) may have taxation difficulties, as well as other challenges, but overall, I think that when we ask a state for equal rights, and we are granted equal rights, then we shouldn't complain when companies don't offer special rights.
Just my rambling thoughts,
Rhonda
PS. As I am going through the process to be a foster parent, adoptive parent, there are many countries that don't prohibit gay/lesbian parents.
6.
LCH | July 9, 2011 at 7:03 am
♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡
7.
steve-sf | July 9, 2011 at 7:32 am
There are also countries where being gay subjects you to criminal prosecution. I wouldn't want to visit those countries when a legal document exists that admits that fact.
8.
David | July 9, 2011 at 8:20 am
I agree that the issue is complicated until we get federal recognition but after that there needs to be equal treatment. Any special recognition of same sex domestic partner relationships feels like we are expecting special rights. I have never been for that.
9.
Mark ;-) | July 9, 2011 at 8:26 am
What about the actual domestic partnerships put in place to protect people that were living together but were not couples? Seems to me this is just a new way for companies to save money on insurance. I know that many of the domestic partnerships are situations like siblings living together or long-term roommates. Just a sad new attack on the people that need the most help.
10.
Ann S. | July 9, 2011 at 8:41 am
§
11.
Laura Billington | July 9, 2011 at 8:50 am
CGS says that not everyone wants to get married, but those who don’t shouldn’t “lose their benefits”. Hey, CGS, nobody who stays single loses “their” benefits—they just lose the benefit that came from the employer of the person they allegedly were partners with. As for adoptions—China had the great majority of out of country adoptions, and they stopped adoptions to single persons a while back (they also prohibit adoptions to gays).
Mark–you are right in that many people who need insurance can’t afford it or can’t qualify for it. But that is the problem of the employer of the roommate / sibling—why?
Steve—my passport doesn’t say if I’m straight or gay, married or single. How is the immigration officer at, say, Saudi Arabia, supposed to know if I am?
12.
Ronnie | July 9, 2011 at 8:57 am
Subscribing & sharing…….NOM & co. have announced a perfect example of how inhuman, soulless & selfish they really are by taking on WBC practices planning to protest against the weddings & marriage celebrations of innocent people, both LGBT & Striaght on July 24th in New York.
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/07/spea…
NOM will be there to ruin the personal memories of the human beings of NY in what is supposed to be a happy day for them.
This is what NOM et al. is all about, disrupting innocent peoples lives. Make no mistakes NOM really stands for Naz…I mean Nasty Organization for Malevolence.
I wonder if Maggie Gallagher would be happy with a picture of a protest sign that says "You are a pervert" in the background of her candid wedding photos?…..Well that is the type of iPhone camera moment that NOM has asked their sheeple do give to not only LGBT couples on July 24th but straight couples as well. There will be kids at these ceremonies to support their LGBT friends & families on July 24th & the opponents of Marriage Equality will be there verbally attacking & harassing these kids like they did to my friend's daughter in Albany before the vote.
SHAME ON NOM!!!…..SHAME….ON….NOM!!!!….. > ( ….Ronnie
13.
LCH | July 9, 2011 at 9:17 am
Time to organize equality angels to show up with very large banners to block them like WBC gets blocked. I can imagine it now: Two rows of wedding white banners forming a corridor for the happy couples exiting the building.
♀♀=♂♂=♀♂=∑♡
14.
peterplumber | July 9, 2011 at 9:52 am
I am in a state registered domestic partnership, and the requirements for that state you cannot be siblings, and you must have a close personal relationship. So siblings and long-term roommates shouldn't be domestic partners.
Even though we are partners, I have had to show proof of the "close personal relationship" in the form of joint finances in order to obtain employer provided health insurance. For us, both names are on our mortgage, so we were easily able to satisfy that requirement.
15.
wagonjak | July 9, 2011 at 9:58 am
Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds fair to me. Could someone explain to me why, if hetero couples must be married to get these benefits, why LGBT couples in states where they CAN marry shouldn't be required to the same rules?
16.
Sheryl_Carver | July 9, 2011 at 10:46 am
See above re: problems while DOMA is still law, & immigration issues. It's complicated & will remain so until the entire country has legal civil equality at both state & federal levels. And for multi-national couples, likely to remain so for a while even after that.
17.
Eric | July 9, 2011 at 10:47 am
When ERISA and federal tax law applies equally to same-sex and opposite-sex legally married couples, then it may be time to evaluate dropping pseudo-legal statuses. Until then, changes would be premature.
18.
Reformed | July 9, 2011 at 11:10 am
So, Maggie, you're the expert. Should same sex couples be required to get married in order to receive health insurance benefits in New York? Yes or No Maggie.
19.
Cat | July 9, 2011 at 11:16 am
When my wife and I moved to the US from The Netherlands (on separate visas), we made sure when we renewed our Dutch passports beforehand that our spouse wasn't mentioned (it's an option that is often advised, so for example you can easily prove your spousal rights in case of medical emergencies). Pretty sad…
BTW, my immigration lawyer was pretty straightforward about the situation: the federal government doesn't accept your marriage, so don't fill in you're married anywhere. I'm not sure it will pass legal muster if they don't give you rights corresponding to your federally unaccepted marriage (e.g. a spouse visa), but they do take away rights based on your non-federally accepted marriage (e.g. no individual temporary visa b/c of your association with a person with a permanent visa). Sounds like trying to have it both ways…
20.
Sagesse | July 9, 2011 at 11:27 am
Ronnie, as I read the article, the protests are to occur on June 24. Since there is a one-day waiting period, most of the first weddings wouldn't occur until the 25th. That said, if NOM does organize protests at actual weddings, we should send the news reports to the SPLC. They can protest anywhere. Disrupting someone's wedding day is an act of hate.
21.
Ronnie | July 9, 2011 at 12:11 pm
From what I heard, some couples plan on having a ceremony on that day outside the office when they get their license. People have already pre-registered online, they just need to pick up the license. Nobody can stop them from having a ceremony with their own minster on the steps of the building. They did it last Valentine's Day.
It's not about can they protest, it's about should they protest. NOM keeps spouting out that they are "moral" & "good" people. Would they want us to protest against them when they go to get their marriage licenses, a day that is very important to people? NO! they would not, therefor they shouldn't do it to us. It's about human decency & respect for their fellow human being's special life moments that they will remember forever.
NOM is willfully & gleefully planning to ruin those memories for innocent couples both LGBT & straight who are not bothering them at all. NOM is going out of their way to harass people but has the audacity to complain about people counter-protesting at their PUBLIC rallies. This is not a public rally, this is a special moment for these couples. If they do this then they are no better then the "God Hates" WBC crowd in which NOM repeatedly tries to distance themselves from. This is a move right out of their playbook. It's repulsive & It's selfish. That day is not about NOM & their ilk, It is about those couples.
SHAME ON NOM!!!…..SHAME….ON….NOM!!!!….. > ( ….Ronnie
22.
AnonyGrl | July 9, 2011 at 2:36 pm
I had no particular plans to go to the clerk's office on Sunday (since I am not getting married, and the closet couple I know who are getting one are going to pick up their license in their own neighboring town), but if I find that NOM is doing a protest HERE, you bet I will go! I am guessing they will be in NYC though, as they can get more press down there. I don't have the budget to get there at this point, sadly.
23.
AnonyGrl | July 9, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I would think that the two biggest objections would be 1) No federal benefits means that taxes can be even MORE confusing if you are married, so some choose to wait, and 2) If you are going to be forced to leave your state to go get married somewhere else where it is legal, that is completely unfair and cost prohibitive.
But once DOMA is repealed, if you live in a state that has equality, then yes, I would think that the requirements should be the same.
24.
Steve | July 9, 2011 at 2:53 pm
It depends on the state. In CA for example people over a certain age (I think 68 or something) can be domestic partners. So it's possible for retired seniors to live together and have some legal rights
25.
AnonyGrl | July 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm
OH it is SO time for an episode of "There Goes The Bus!" with Maggie and Brian.
Maggie and Brian are back at the NOM offices. A slightly tattered banner from a party that no one came to droops down reading "No Same Sex Marriage for New Yorkers!" Maggie sits behind the desk, looking dejected, reading the newspaper. Brian is pacing around, kicking things occasionally.
Maggie: It's a super majority now.
Brian: What?
Maggie: In New York. A "super majority" they are calling it. A "super majority" supports marriage equality.
Brian: We can get the votes. We are holding a rally and we will show people who it is that are really getting married… and our people will come out and vote on it at the next election. Let the people vote.
Maggie: (sighing) Don't be an idiot. New York doesn't have a voter referendum.
Brian: (confused) Then why are we going around saying "Let the people vote?"
Maggie shakes her head in exasperation, picks up some bills off the desk and shakes them at him.
Maggie: Because, personally, I don't want to pay these out of MY pocket, do you? Do you remember what our strategy was if we lost in New York? The Republicans control the Senate, last time around the DEMOCRATS couldn't get this passed, do you remember what our strategy was? Well, I do! We didn't HAVE one!
She tosses the bills at Brian, who picks up them up and puts them back on the desk, while Maggie goes back to the paper. She finds an article and reads a few sentences.
Maggie: "IBM is REQUIRING that same sex couples marry if they want to keep their benefits." (exasperated) GREAT… big corporations are supporting same sex marriage… "Lamda Legal experts cautioned that people who are working through immigration issues or who live in states that don't allow same sex marriage will be harmed by this decision and should not be forced to get married to keep their benefits."
Brian: (getting animated) Wait! Now they are arguing they DON'T want to get married? This is GREAT! I think we need to come out on the side of IBM requiring them to get married if they want benefits!
Maggie (slowly, so even Brian can follow) So… you think they SHOULD get married?
Brian: Yes! Well… No! (starting to deflate) We are against same sex marriage. So… ummmm… (next great idea!) we should come out saying they should NOT have to get married to keep their benefits!
Maggie: (even more deliberately) And you now want to give them special privileges, after we have argued so hard AGAINST that?
Brian: Yes! No! I don't KNOW! No, they should not be eligible for any special privileges, so they should not get benefits at all!
Maggie:(with irony) They should be kept from getting benefits because we here at NOM are in SUPPORT of gay rights, just not gay marriage…
Brian: Right! We support the rights of homosexuals to not get any benefits at all!
Maggie: (rolling her eyes) And THAT doesn't look like animus at all. They will wipe the floor with that in court.
Brian: OK! Right! So I think that there should not be any benefits for anyone! That way no one is getting any special rights.
Maggie: (talking as if to a two year old) Brian. How many children do you have? And how would you like it if you had to pay for all their health care out of pocket? And how do you think our SUPPORTERS would like it if we started saying that no one should have any benefits? And one more time… who is going to pay THESE? (she waves the bills at him again)
Brian: So they should be required to get married… but only until we get marriage equality repealed… then they can go back to not being married…. and we could…. no… they could…. ummmm…. (he trails off, completely locked in a loop)
Maggie sighs and flips to the help wanted section. Brian slumps into a chair. Tinkly music plays the first phrase of "The Wheels on the Bus" in a minor key, and it trails off into discordance as the lights fade to black.
26.
davep | July 9, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Aaah, this is brilliant, Anongrl! : ) Thanks for this!
27.
karen in kalifornia | July 9, 2011 at 7:06 pm
62…only one person has to be over 62.
28.
karen in kalifornia | July 9, 2011 at 7:10 pm
That's true…those married same sex couples will be taxed for federal taxes for the value of the health benefits….so unless IBM and Rayethon, Corning, etc cover those federal taxes (I believe here in California Google pays the taxes for ss couples to equal the playing field) then this new policy would treat homo and hetero couples differently.
29.
Straight Ally #3008 | July 9, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Tinkly music plays the first phrase of "The Wheels on the Bus" in a minor key, and it trails off into discordance as the lights fade to black.
Perfect coda.
30.
Tony D | July 9, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I don't see any complications here. If a straight couple needs to be married to get joint health insurance, then so should same-sex couples. It's that simple! Stop making it out to be more than it is!!!
31.
Fluffyskunk | July 9, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Don't they already require heterosexual couples to wed in order to receive benefits, why should we be any different? This sounds too much like those "special rights" they say we're after.
32.
Sheryl_Carver | July 9, 2011 at 9:21 pm
No, Tony, it is NOT that simple, thanks in large part to the fact that DOMA is still in force. Thus, the situation is completely different for LGBT couples.
33.
AnonyGrl | July 9, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Unfortunately, it is NOT special rights if a couple that lives in Idaho (for instance) has to come to NY to get married. It is a hardship and a burden, much the same as it has always been. And for a couple that is bi-national, getting married before DOMA is repealed may, in fact, cause MORE problems. Also, imagine a couple in Hawaii, who has done all the civil union paperwork there and thinks they are covered, being told that unless they go all the way to the east coast and actually get a marriage license, they will lose their insurance.
This just highlights the fact that, while we have come quite a long way, there is still a LOT of this fight left to go. We can't just be satisfied with what we have and be done with it.
34.
Sheryl_Carver | July 9, 2011 at 9:24 pm
It's not "special rights" when the financial consequences of marriage are different for LGBT couples than they are for heterosexual couples. When DOMA is finally & truly & completely dead, and LGBT couples can get married in all 50 states, then you can talk about "special rights."
35.
AnonyGrl | July 9, 2011 at 9:25 pm
A straight couple can go downtown, and, in twenty minutes or so, pick up a marriage license. While that is now true for same sex couples living in 11% of the country, it is NOT true for the other 89%.
That alone is a major complication.
36.
Tasty Salamanders | July 10, 2011 at 12:16 am
Sorry but I am confused by your argument, I thought the companies doing this were only doing it in states where marriage equality already exists, so people in states without it wouldn't be effected.
37.
Franck | July 10, 2011 at 3:37 am
If my partner and I were to get married, we'd jeopardize my ability to get a visa to visit him. On the other side, if we don't get married, we can't get partner benefits. Hmmm, having to chose between seeing each other and getting benefits… "No complications", you say?
– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1479 days, as of today.
38.
AnyaAngie | July 10, 2011 at 5:22 am
And the paralells between NOM and the KKK deepen… Maybe they'll burn a few crosses or something and people will see them for what they REALLY are… But that's wishful thinking. They're not THAT stupid are they?
39.
Ronnie | July 10, 2011 at 7:49 am
GOP Candidate Gary Johnson Blasts "Offensive" Anti-Gay Pledge http://www.towleroad.com/2011/07/gop-candidate-ga…
<3… Ronnie
40.
Sagesse | July 10, 2011 at 8:45 am
John Kerry
The Boston Globe
Politicians have the right to evolve on gay marriage
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opini…
41.
Sagesse | July 10, 2011 at 9:38 am
Ronnie, surely this makes it all better…. NOT.
The Family Leader Drops Controversial Section Concerning Slavery From 'Marriage Vow' Pledge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/the-fami…
42.
Ronnie | July 10, 2011 at 10:15 am
Since the original statement, document & date of the signatures still exist in the ethers it doesn't really matter what they drop. It has already been recorded, reported & printed. A signed binding anti-American Fascist manifesto is a signed binding anti-American Fascist manifesto…..There's no takesies-backsies. It just proves how guilty they are, how thoroughly benighted they are, who they are willing to throw under the back of the bus, & how big of a liar they really are…to sum it up: TOO LATE!!!… (rolls eyes at their major FAIL) ….. 8 / …Ronnie
43.
AnyaAngie | July 10, 2011 at 1:12 pm
NOM, FRC and other such groups should really take advice from the master philosopher:
"When we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves." – Confucius
44.
AnyaAngie | July 10, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Guys, does this bunch of hogwash sound familiar?
"Homosexuality is a perversion of nature and a filthy, diseased and perverted lifestyle. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so it is only logical that they recruit others into their perverted lifestyle. One of the ways in which they do this is in shopping malls and other public gathering locations. Police officers will tell you that homosexual predators will hang out in shopping malls and similar type locations looking for young teenagers that are in a partying mood and supply the finances for the party to get close to the youth. They hang around youth centers and music concerts and one of the newest and sickest ways of recruiting is now through adoption. When two men or two women adopt a child it only stands to reason that the child will be raised as a homosexual or lesbian. Homosexuals will deny these alegations of perverted recruitment but they have been proven to be true time and time again. This perverted practice of adoption is all to clear, common sense tells us that when a man or woman raises a child, they raise that child to the standard both moral and sexual that their lifestyle mirrors."
No, this is not from NOM or FRC or any of those similar groups; it comes DIRECTLY from the mother of all hate groups, the KKK. We really should jump on this similarity now, I think. Who in their right mind wants to be associated with the KKK? All we need to do is start a campaign that says, "Our opposition is no better than the KKK. Our opposition says this… the KKK says this… Do you really want to support a group that sympathizes with the most outrageous hate group in American history?"
Source for this and other such hideousness: http://www.wckkkk.org/nature.html
I can't read this whole thing… makes me sick…
45.
Tony D | July 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I stand corrected.
46.
Tony D | July 10, 2011 at 5:12 pm
I agree, it is frustrating how a few wealthy people feel they have a right to dictate their religious beliefs on everyone. In this case, I just don't understand how DOMA comes into play when employee benefits are concerned?
47.
Tony D | July 10, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I'm guessing you work for one of the companies mentioned? I apologize. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
48.
Sheryl_Carver | July 10, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Because DOMA prevents SS couples from being recognized as married at the federal level, any benefits the spouse of the employee receives (health insurance premiums, etc) are considered taxable, whereas the same benefits to a OS spouse is not. Also, filing tax returns is much more difficult, as usually state forms are based on a federal return, so the SS couple must fill out or pay an accountant to fill out a federal return so they can do their state taxes, then fill out new, separate federal returns as single people (or head of household, depending).
I don't know all the details, as I am not in this situation, nor am I an accountant, so I'm probably not explaining this at all well or even correctly, but based on what I've read, it can be difficult as each couple's situation is different & thus what might be overall beneficial for one couple might not be cost-effective for another.
Here's an article of what Cambridge, MA, is doing to try to offset some of the financial burden to married SS couples: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/…
49.
Franck | July 10, 2011 at 9:49 pm
I don't work for one of these companies, but my partner might be soon. Actually, we're in a situation where legal recognition of our relationship, for whichever reason, might potentially harm our chances of seeing each other. One of the nice gifts from that ugly thing called DOMA…
– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1481 days, as of today.
50.
peterplumber | July 11, 2011 at 5:27 am
Hmmmm,
OK, I was a natrual born child of straight parents, and was not "recruited" into homosexuality by anyone. In fact, when I was 14 or 15, I had to search far & wide to find another gay guy.
How do they explain that?
51.
peterplumber | July 11, 2011 at 5:34 am
Regarding the topic of the main article…..
If a state adopts marriage equality as law, does the domestic partnership law become null & and all partnerships are voided?
If the domestic partnership law stands, and the law reads as California & Washington law; that any domestic partnership shall be treated equal to any marriage, then any corporation doing business in that state HAS to abide by the law. In Washington, the law states that if an employer extends benifits to the spouse of a married couple, then they must also extend the very same benifits to domestic partners.
It is not for a corporation to recreate state law to suite their own needs.
52.
AnyaAngie | July 11, 2011 at 6:07 am
They can't. It's like trying to explain justification for racism; impossible because it makes absolutely no sense! Someone should really let NOM and the other groups have it; when they see their views are no different than the KKK, I bet they'd be stunned!
53.
Ed Cortes | July 11, 2011 at 7:58 am
I bet they'd cite it as "independent research"
54.
James Sweet | July 11, 2011 at 8:01 am
Seems to me that companies who chose to only offer the domestic partnership status to same-sex couples have really got themselves in a bind right now. As pointed out, the ongoing federal discrimination sort of makes it a non-starter to take away that benefit at this point. And even if that were to go away, the idea that at some point in the future it will be like, "Get married right now or lose your benefits" is a problem.
Of course the right thing to do is to offer domestic partnership status to ALL couples (just as my employer does, and in fact I was able to put my wife on my insurance before we got married, which was such a relief). Not for nothing, but Adam's observation that "many people…simply do not favor the institution of marriage for many different moral or personal reasons" applies just as much to heterosexual couples as it does to same-sex couples.
This is a problem right now for corporations already looking to tighten their belts. Better would have been to just get it right in the first place, as my employer did, and offer domestic partnership benefits to any cohabitating couple right from the get go.
55.
Lora | July 11, 2011 at 9:04 am
My company treats my pre prop. 8 marriage as equal to any of my co-workers…it's the federal gov't. that makes me pay $1,000's extra!
Kudos to this Massachusetts city for doing the right thing: http://lancasteronline.com/article/ap/419194_Mass…
56.
peterplumber | July 11, 2011 at 9:22 am
Here is the plain language form of the California law:
Under the California Insurance Equality Act (A.B. 2208), all health, auto, rental, disability, life, and all other insurance plans regulated by the California Department of Insurance are prohibited from treating registered domestic partners and spouses differently. Therefore, all covered policies and plans must provide identical coverage to registered domestic partners and spouses. So, for example, unless your employer is self-insured, if your employer provides health benefits to the spouses of its employees, it will also have to provide the same coverage to the registered domestic partners of its employees. The California Insurance Equality Act went into effect on January 2, 2005 for group health insurance plans and on January 1, 2005 for other types of insurance.
For more information about the California Insurance Equality Act, see http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/ab2208_fa…. In addition, failure on the part of businesses or employers to provide equal benefits to domestic partners may constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, sex, or marital status, depending on the circumstances.
57.
peterplumber | July 11, 2011 at 9:23 am
But they left some ambiguity… unless your employer is self-insured
Does that mean if the company is self insured they can do whatever they want with regard to this? The company I worked for in Washington became self insured while I was there. They still hired Blue Shield to administer the health plan, but Blue Shield sent a bill to the company to pay for all covered expenses. So therefore, my company still hired Blue Shield, so to me, that sounds like they would still fall under the above regulations.
Bigger companies like Raytheon and IBM may have their own health administration and not fall under a commercial insurer at all. unless your employer is self-insured sounds like a loophole to me.
58.
Sheryl_Carver | July 11, 2011 at 9:30 am
This is from NOM's blog on July 8th. As you can see, they are very effective at spinning:
Some creative minds came up with a poster comparing NOM to the KKK. It's outrageous of course. We wouldn't normally bother to notice such stuff, which is par for the course, but even on the gay blogs circulating it a lot of fair minded people are questioning that kind of over the top rhetoric.
So we point out once again, for the fair minded on either side of this debate: When a man came to a NOM rally with a hateful sign, he was immediately told he wasn't welcome. This is why the photo of the hateful sign is not of a sign being held up at a NOM rally but a sign discarded across the street.
Just to make it crystal clear, we then issued a statement denouncing violence, harassment or threats of violence against any one on any side of the marriage debate, including against gay people and gay marriage supporters.
Link is: http://www.nomblog.com/11045/
I'm not saying that getting the word out on how similar the organizations are is not a good thing, just that it would have to be done carefully to be effective. And the leadership of NOM et al are either so deluded or so certain that the end justifies ANY means, that they won't change until they don't get paid or otherwise rewarded with media attention. Remember, the KKK is still around, & David Duke did get elected to the Louisiana House.
Humans are very strange & complex beings.
59.
Ann S. | July 11, 2011 at 9:31 am
Peter, do you have a source for that? It is not the actual law. The law (AB 2208) can be found here: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2201…
That is much too "plain English" to be a law, and I don't see anything in the law about being self-insured, but I haven't studied it.
60.
peterplumber | July 11, 2011 at 9:45 am
I got that from NCLR
http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/AB205.04….
61.
AnyaAngie | July 11, 2011 at 9:53 am
Excellent post Sheryl! I agree, absolutely. It should be done in a gentile way that points out the policies/opinions of the groups, rather than their tactics/actions.
62.
Ann S. | July 11, 2011 at 9:58 am
OK. My post's link is to the wrong AB 2208, BTW. Sorry!
NCLR's summation of the law may be right, I can't say. The actual law is here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_2…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.