posted
Not meaning this to be a debate, but just a hmm, something to think about. The other thing that they don't mention about domestic partnership benefits is that it can be applied to unmarried persons of opposite sex as well.
quote: GAY MARRIAGE Corporate America Blazed the Trail Although state and local governments are only beginning to offer marriage licenses to gays, a large percentage of corporate America has already extended benefits to 'spousal equivalents.' By John Simons
When Massachusetts and local governments like the city of San Francisco began offering marriage licenses to gay couples recently, experts predicted legal and taxation nightmares for benefits managers, who would be left to figure out whose marriage is legal and in what jurisdiction. Although Massachusetts recognizes gay unions, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, does not. But for many companies in Massachusetts, May 17—the day the Bay State began allowing gay couples to wed—wasn't exactly a watershed moment. That's because this is one issue in which corporate America has been ahead of the curve. At Boston-based Gillette Corp., "We had already been treating gay partners as spousal equivalents," says spokesman Eric Kraus. At Fidelity Investments, HR officials notified employees that all domestic partners would receive the same benefits as married spouses. Crisis averted.
Politically, though, corporate America's increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships puts it at odds with much of the country, if polls are to be believed. In the past year the likes of General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Merck, Pepsi, Sears, and UPS have all added domestic partner benefits plans. In 1998 just 13% of the FORTUNE 500 offered benefits packages for same-sex partners of their employees. Today, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian and gay advocacy group, that number has increased to 40%. Most of those programs offer domestic partners the same raft of benefits given to heterosexual spouses.
But make no mistake: There's no socially progressive agenda at work here. Most companies that offer partner benefits simply think it gives them a competitive edge in recruiting and retaining workers. Take IBM, for instance. In 1995 the computer giant acquired Cambridge, Mass., software maker Lotus, which had been the nation's first publicly traded company to recognize gay partnerships in its benefits offerings in 1992. At the time, IBM wasn't as broad-minded in its definition of deserving beneficiaries. "During the acquisition, the question was, 'Who's going to change, us or them?' " says IBM spokesman Jim Sinocchi. A year after the acquisition, it was IBM that ended up adopting Lotus's policy. "We realized it was unfair to have an employee working for our company who couldn't get benefits for a loved one." Indeed, the plans engender good will at a relatively low cost since, on average, only about 1% to 2% of employees enroll.
Though many business leaders are loath to say it, they are dreading the possible passage of President Bush's proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It could mean, for instance, that existing benefits plans for same-sex couples could be legally challenged as unconstitutional. Says Gail Morse, a corporate tax lawyer who's with Chicago's Jenner & Block: "Companies don't want to be put in the position of being a referee. They want simplicity. Just check the box. Do you have a committed partner or not?"
posted
Oh man, AJ -- I don't think I'm up to another gay-marriage (/benefits) thread this late on a Friday afternoon. I just want to vegetate here. You all have fun....
quote:Politically, though, corporate America's increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships puts it at odds with much of the country, if polls are to be believed.
Benefits are offered to attract good workers. Corporations are offering domestic partner benefits because it's necessary to attract talent in certain industries. It also helps a lot with retention. Corporations are nothing if not practical.
And somehow, married heterosexual workers at these firms haven't seen their marriages marginalized or trivialized.
Dagonee *sorry for any residual snarkiness.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't believe it at first. . . but apparently, vegetate really is spelled with an 'e' and not an 'i.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
This bit of info could be used as ammo on either side and that to me is the interesting thing.
On the anti- side You could argue that it really invalidates many of the "benefits" arguments that the pro-gay marriage camp is making because enough companies offer them without the "marriage" label.
On the pro- side You could argue that this is a sign of progress and that society isn't falling apart at the seams even though 40% of corporate america is now implementing these benefit policies.
How's that for sitting the fence? AJ
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have nothing against companies choosing to do this on their own -- after all, they have the right to extend whatever they want under the free market system.
But I think they should have a choice as to whether or not to do this..
Whenever things become mandated, then resentment surfaces.
posted
FG, it wouldn't necessarily be mandated even with gay civil marriage; the only new wrinkle would be that if you don't have gay partner benefits, you couldn't have hetero partner benefits, I would bet.
The healthcare companies have gotten into the act too. HMO Blue New England, my healthcare provider, made it clear in my intro. package that if you have a committed, cohabitating partner (gay or hetero), and have no desire to end the relationship soon (and are not related either), then you can add them to the plan. I am not sure that these benfits are identical to spousal benefits, I didn't pay that close attention.
posted
It makes sense - I'd assume the rates are profitable for the insurance company, so why wouldn't they want to offer them to as many people as possible?
The legal "definition" aspect of marriage may be the most lingering aspect of this after there significant numbers of gay marriages. Contracts can define their own terms, and when they don't there is still an attempt to find out what the parties intended. It will be interesting how contracts based on marriage date or wills with marriage stipulations are interpreted in the future.
posted
It's too early to tell if this dog will hunt, but there's an alternate response to same-sex marriage and benefits. Essentially, the logic goes, since anyone who wants to be married CAN be married now, only MARRIED couples will get benefits:
quote:Unmarried Couples Lose Benefits In Springfield Wednesday, June 2nd 2004
SPRINGFIELD, MA—In light of a two-week-old state law allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, the mayor of a small Massachusetts city declared domestic-partnership benefits for city employees obsolete, the Associated Press reported Saturday.
After a 90-day grace period, Springfield city employees who have not yet wed their domestic partners will forfeit their partners’ eligibility for the city’s group health insurance program. Mayor Charles Ryan’s predecessor, Michael Albano, instituted the domestic-partnership benefits by executive order, conferring benefits on the partners and dependents of LGTB city employees. Several Massachusetts companies, including Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Babson College, have also announced intentions to deny benefits to unmarried partners by year’s end.
Gay-rights activists responded with concern to the mayor’s announcement. Arline Isaacson of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus told the Associated Press, “It is grossly inappropriate and terribly unfair for any employer to rescind domestic partner benefits until gay people have complete and total marriage rights, which we don’t right now.”
-- Editor
While I don't really like this, I can understand the logic.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
During transition, I'm not sure how I feel. Once it's final (years and years from now), I think I favor this attitude. It fits along with my legal convenience theory by removing the need for people to judge the intentions of unmarried domestic partnerships. You're married or your not. Married couples form a partnership; unmarried couples don't.
posted
I have no problem with the Springfield policy. If there is no longer a need to be fair by providing unmarried couples benefits, then why continue the policy.
I'm sure the "concern" from "gay rights advocates" is that if the marriages are overruled by a Mass. Contitutional amendment there is no guarantee the domestic partnership benefits will be returned. I can understand this, but looking on the bright side I think this shows another public acceptance of the legitimacy of the marriages and will probably strengthen arguements against a constitutional ammendment.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get absolutely no governmental tax or corporate breaks for married or unmarried status, so it really doesn't matter to me either way. At least they removed the penalty from a couple years ago when I would have lost money had I been married to my bf.
quote:It will be interesting to see how upset heterosexual non-married couples will get.
AJ,
that's exactly what I've been wondering.
example of irony: corporate response to gay marriage results in more heterosexual nonmarried partners getting married. I suspect there are some very gleeful social scientists just itching to watch all this play out. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I realize this isn't quite in following with the thread, but I really didn't want to start yet another gay marriage thread.
I just have to say now that I'm embarassed to be originally from Virginia. I mean, I know it's a very conservative state, but this is rediculous.
quote:Richmond, Virginia, May. 27 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - Virginia has passed one of the strictest restrictions on homosexual partnerships in the US on Wednesday, banning same-sex civil unions. The new law amends the 1997 Affirmation of Marriage Act, which already disallows homosexual marriage. The new legislation also makes illegal any "arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage."
Republican Delegate Robert Marshall, sponsor of the bill, argued the law is necessary to prevent homosexuals from attaining to the legal status of marriage by some other process. "Civil union is a proxy for marriage and domestic partnership is a proxy for civil unions," he said, as reported by The Associated Press.
Basically, this law is preventing not only gay marriage, but is actually preventing gay couple from even obtaining many of the same rights that may be obtained by alternative methods. This is ridiculous. I saw this a few weeks ago, but couldn't find a link to the article I saw, so I didn't post about it. In that story, the sponsor of the bill actually said something like (very rough idea) 'we have to make the law wider or they'll find a way around it'. Since when did the gay marriage debate become an us vs. them issue?
-Mike
*edit* - Oh, and I just have to point out how economically stupid this is. Since married folks are considered one entity, they pay more taxes than they would separately (if this isn't the case anymore, I appologize). That and the fact that this law will probably drive many people out of the state entirely.
*edit* - Guess I ought to include a link, huh? This is the best one I could find at the moment.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
