Massachusetts firms drop domestic-partner benefits

washingtontimes.com ^ | December 9, 2004 | Cheryl Wetzstein

[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."

[aShepard]

.....Umm...you just can't use any old guy........

Think

---

Justice of the Peace---

God doesn't need to enter into your situation to get married.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

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.

[Grampa Dave]

[Grampa Dave]

[Attillathehon]

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.

[crushelits]

ping pong

[Phantom Lord]

I am not suggesting that the relationship is normal, only that when it comes to employment benefits if a gay couple can get married in Mass then to receive spousal benefits from the company they damn well better get married or not get the benes.

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.