Skip to comments.Massachusetts firms drop domestic-partner benefits
Posted on 12/09/2004 8:54:21 AM PST by crushelits
To some major Massachusetts employers, this year's advent of same-sex "marriage" means the end of their domestic-partnership benefit programs.
The decision by IBM Corp., the New York Times Co. and Northeastern University to offer health benefits only to "married" same-sex couples pleases some advocates, but troubles others.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision, which legalized same-sex "marriage" as of May 17, "leveled the playing field," said Candace Quinn, vice president of Baystate Health System, which employs 90,000 people.
Years ago, she said, Baystate started offering domestic-partner benefits to its homosexual employees, because "they had no other option to cover their life partners."
The Goodridge decision changed everything for same-sex couples, she said, and because Baystate doesn't offer domestic-partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it created an unfair situation for them.
"So we are going back to the policy that we only supply benefits to married couples," said Ms. Quinn, adding that the policy change was announced in the summer so Baystate's 50 affected employees could make plans -- including wedding arrangements.
These decisions show that "corporate America is taking a step toward equality," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director at the Human Rights Campaign. "Equalizing benefits, responsibilities and rights for individuals by corporations was exactly what this [Goodridge] case was all about. It was about fair and equal treatment."
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
The gays should be happy. No trace of "second class citizenship" remains. So they can get married up there and get their benefits.
Unless the whole exercise was about somehing other than "having the right to marry" . . .
And they quoted someone as saying that this was an unfair move because the decision for gay couples to marry is more difficult than for heterosexual couples.
Amusing "unintended consequences".
I wonder just how many gay people work for Raytheon... :P
The law of unintended consequences at work.
I have been looking for this over at DU to see how they are reacting as I suspect it will be a fun fight to watch. Can't find it posted anywhere. If any other brave souls venture over there please post a link and ping me.
Apparently Raytheon has five LGBT networks and an active human resources program.
I do know that they match donations to Gay-Straight Alliances in schools.
They never really said it was about equality anyway.
It's cheaper to pay the differential of $120,000 in annual medical insurance than to litigate in court (50 employees x $600/month insurance, less the difference for individual coverage) .
O_O wow, who'd a thunk it?
You'd figure a military contractor would be about as manly a work environment as you could get.
I Subscribe to the Homosexual Agenda
December 9, 2004
By Joseph Hughes
I also subscribe to Newsweek and Spin, for what it's worth. Seriously, though, I am so tired of hearing bigotry masquerade as "values," hatred as "compassion." I'll be blunt: If you do not accept homosexuality, do not think that gays should marry, you are a bigot. You're not old fashioned. You're also not Christian. Again, you are a bigot. And an idiot. And I'm tired of people not calling things what they are.
So let's spend a little time discussing the "homosexual agenda."
These homosexuals who (and I checked) are actual people and not a nameless, faceless, well-dressed mob are apparently out to get special rights and privileges from the government. They want - gasp - to be able to marry and enjoy the benefits associated with such unions. They want - God forbid - to be able to visit their dying partners in the hospital, to make arrangements should they die. And they also want - heavens - to be treated with the same dignity the rest of us are afforded.
Why would homosexuals want these things? Why would they, for some strange reason, want to be on the same footing as the rest of society? Why? Why are they so in our faces with the "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!" chants? Why do they push their radical, let's-all-have-equal-rights agenda down our throats? Why would they stop with one single-sex marriage partner why not marry their dogs?
If you asked any one of these questions without tongue firmly planted in cheek, there are several things you should know: This article isn't for you. You are a bigot. You are an idiot.
You'll hear the Right claiming to not be homophobic. They'll tell you they live and let live (as long as you don't live next to them). They'll also tell you that, like them, most Americans agree that the "institution" of marriage is something worth protecting. As if homosexuals and like-minded individuals everywhere are as seen in that hateful campaign brochure distributed this fall out to ban their Bibles.
Let's look at this confusion in depth.
If someone's religious rites don't respect everyone's basic civil rights, then something is wrong. They see it as "us" (for lack of a better term) trying to change their religious standards. But it appears to me that their religious views views that not everyone subscribes to (different religions, no religion, etc.) are being used to prevent someone from holding their basic rights.
Again, there's no army of homosexuals on the prowl to ruin someone's religious rite. Let's say Ohio's Issue 1 (constitutional ban on same-sex marriage) failed or is somehow ruled unconstitutional. A church could still refuse to marry homosexuals, because it doesn't have a legal obligation to do so. Do I agree? No. Could they? Sure. But I don't think a religion has the right to tell the state how it should govern a legally-binding agreement.
There are two definitions of "marriage" being discussed here: Religious and civil (not as in civil unions, but the "marriage" that comes from getting the paper at the courthouse). How churches and theologians legislate the former is their business. How the government legislates the latter is their business. Never the twain shall meet.
If you don't like the idea that a church may in the future marry homosexuals in the religious rite, that's up to you. But it's not up to you to use your religion (one of myriad religions) to define how the state sees marriage. Because, if you do, you're somehow suggesting there's a state religion something, if I'm remembering correctly, we fought back in the day to avoid.
Plus, why do we never see the religious marriage-defense roadblocks fly up when two atheists get married? Because homosexuals like blacks and women before them are easy targets for them to marginalize. Where does it stop? When will it end?
Here's something you won't hear in the bigots' anti-gay posturing: They're scared. They are more afraid of "Will and Grace" than al Qaeda attacking their local Piggly Wiggly. They see Janet Jackson's nipple on television, see "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," and they are scared. It wasn't so long ago that the sight of a black person in their diner provoked the same response. Fear of change is a dangerous thing. Dangerous for those afraid to change and, even more so, for those seen as the "changers."
This fear has led many to develop a terribly misled view of homosexuals. If gays are allowed to marry, they say, marriage will be ruined. Why, then, is the state that allows same-sex marriage (Massachusetts) the one with the lowest divorce rate? If they're allowed to raise kids, they say, those children will grow up mal-adjusted. Why, then, was it reported recently that children of same-sex couples are just as well off as those with mixed-sex parents? What are they so afraid of?
And they can keep their "values." I really have a hard time believing Jesus would rather keep gays out of His church and ban abortion than feed the hungry, clothe the poor and cure the sick. Remember those values? You won't hear about those at your local WASPy mega-church these days. "God is Love" doesn't quite ring as true any more, does it?
America is at a dangerous crossroads: We, as a nation, could remain old-ashioned, looking to a hate-filled past for our values. Or we could look to the future, embrace diversity as an ideal and move forward. If I were a praying man, I'd pray for the latter. It's our only hope. Joseph Hughes is a graphic designer and writer by day and a liberal blogger by night. Read stories like this and many more at his blog, Hughes for America.
Thanks. But not what I was looking for. I would like a link to a thread on DU discussing the decision by companies in MA to drop same sex benes for those who are not married.
Military contractors must gleefully embrace diversity to get tax money deposited in their accounts.
It's time we all read "The Communist Manifesto" & then all will understand this situation fully.
This may or may not have any relation to this post, but here in Maryland, we got some homo couples suing to get married - but the state refuses to even recognize heterosexual couples that have been living together for years as common-law marriages. How the hell is that fair.
What these cockamamy people have to realize is that homosexuality is NOT NORMAL. It's not natural and it's not what nature intended. I wish they would quit trying to normalize perverted actvity.
Indeed, we here at largest military contractor are so
steeped in diversity, we can get it online, instructor
lead and even the new diversity...Myers-Briggs personality
type. 16 Flavors
St. Theresa de Avila, "More tears are caused by answered prayers than unanswered ones."
But with the issue at hand you can and must compare them on the same level. If Company A is providing health care benes to the same sex partner of an employee because they can not legally get married and thus would never be eligible for spouse benefits then it is not only fair but proper that since they can now get married that to receive spousal benes they must get married.
To continue to provide same sex benes to unmarried same sex couples would be discrimination against unmarried hetero couples and thuse to be fair and just in their bene policies they must then offer spousal benes to ALL partners of unmarried couples.
This is so funny!
This proves it.....The entire homosexual 'agenda' is not about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance. It's not enough to say 'Look, what you do on your own time is OK, it's just not for me.' No, we need to teach our children that anything gay is OK, unless it's negative (depression, suicide, etc) and then it's not mentioned. We need to 'embrace' diversity, except for the bad parts that don't get mentioned (lower education, drug use, crime, etc.). And obviously, anyone that says different is a hateful bigot that needs to be re-educated.
I've always said that it's easiest for liberals to freely spend other people money and morality. Wife's friends are libs, and were expounding on the virtues of diversity at a recent get-together. I asked when the last time was that they spent in a soup kitchen, or volunteering at an inner city Y or school, or even just contributing $$ to a charity. Dead silence. One guy volunteered at a hospice for AIDS patients - 'safe', upper class, homosexual AIDS patients, but at least he put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, you never saw so many people shuffling and looking down at their shoes.
A liberal's definition of diversity is a white socialist, a black socialist, a gay socialist, a latino socialist, and so forth. There's all-inclusive diversity for you.
/rant off. I feel better.
How about taking all the money away from heterosexuals and dispersing it amongst the homosexual population. Would that please them?
That isn't the writing of crushelits. He mearly posted an article written by someone who supports the homosexual agenda over at DU.
....."the state refuses to even recognize heterosexual couples that have been living together for years as common-law marriages. How the hell is that fair."........
Hey, no problem. 1. Get the car keys, 2. Get in, close the door, and drive to the local town hall. 3. Fill out form, dig $25 out of your wallet, get blood test, then, 4. Stand there with your partner while some guy pronounces you man and wife.
Every one of us heterosexuals have been doing this for centuries, some with lots of flair and fancy, some with none, but all it takes is the guts to make a decision.
Yes but others in states without the wonderful laws of that state are now, after giving benefits to "same sex partners", are now offering benefits to "opposite sex partners" to avoid lawsuits!!
And then they wonder how to make a profit....
I agree unmarried couples don't deserve benefits but you missed the point. Assuming a homosexual is a NORMAL "couple" is where you begin to compare apples and oranges. The day will probably come when a person will be allowed to marry a pet - so should vet bills be covered? I would hope not but suggesting that a homosexual union is normal is as normal as a man marrying his dog.
And this government position ought to be recinded. When you want a good engineer, it matters not a whit if he is a homosexual, a woman, a minority or a majority. All that matters is that he is the best and wants to do the job.
All diversity does is ask the company to take a candidate who is one of the mascots of the left and pretend he is the best candidate and give him the job. This is silly and has been reducing the effectiveness of American firms since the policy got approved in federal contract law. It was dumb then and it is still dumb. Its time to look at it again.
Homosexual Agenda Ping. Good news or bad? You decide. I always like it when firms don't offer domestic partnership or whatever it's called benefits.
***Unless the whole exercise was about somehing other than "having the right to marry" ...
Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
I agree with you, but I doubt that social engineering using tax dollars will stop in our lifetimes.
Heck, the current tax structure is social engineering.
This is hilarious. :-)
.....Umm...you just can't use any old guy........
Again, there's no army of homosexuals on the prowl to ruin someone's religious rite!
Homosexuals are not after the children. They just want to be Boy scout leaders because they know better than most how young boys should grow up to be responsible decent citizens and role models.
Speaking of unintended consequences, One of the arguments AGAINST same-sex marriages is that the benefits gay people claim to need are already available to them with civil unions and domestic partner coverage. By taking away those benefits, gay people now have a legitimate argument in favor of gay marriage.
And to our benefit, complaints about having to do so or a reluctance to do so on the homosexuals part will further expose them for what their radical agenda is really all about.