Posted on 11/22/2012 11:58:02 AM PST by Steelfish
San Francisco Workers May Be Reimbursed On Same-Sex Couple Benefits November 22, 2012
San Francisco public employees who add their same-sex spouses or domestic partners to their health insurance have always faced a raw deal compared to their straight married counterparts: the premiums are considered taxable income and the employer takes additional federal tax out of the worker’s paycheck.
But a San Francisco supervisor has now proposed to end the “discriminatory” practice and “reimburse those same sex domestic partners to make them whole.”
Supervisor Mark Farrell, who introduced the proposed legislation this week, said it was crafted over the past year with help from Google, which has led the charge nationally to compensate gay and lesbian workers who receive unequal treatment compared to straight married couples under the federal tax code, Farrell said. Google helped Cambridge, Mass., craft a similar policy, he noted.
While a number of states have legalized domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage, granting couples state tax advantages, the federal government under the Defense of Marriage Act does not recognize such unions. Untaxed health care premiums for spouses are among a host of federal protections that married gay and lesbian couples are denied, along with immigration rights, Social Security survivor’s benefits, and the ability to file joint tax returns.
U.S. Supreme Court justices this month are expected to consider whether to review a number of challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. But for Farrell, who is married to a woman and has three children, one a newborn, there was no reason to wait.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
What's opinion and what's news-reporting? The descent of the LA Times in the sewer of so-called objective reporting. Gays infest the corridors of the LA Times
Leftists forcing their religion and beliefs down our throats again
My employer, really a terrific company (and a household name in the technology field), does this. They allow same-sex domestic partners to be covered, but NOT opposite sex domestic partners. I’ve warned them this is HIGHLY discriminatory (not to mention just plain wrong on SO many levels).
If your company is so terrific why do they allow fudgepackers to be covered but not straight, normal workers?
No, they’re NOT a terrific company if they push sodomy as a cultural norm. They are just another turd circling the toilet we are in.
What if their domestic partner is a goat? It’s discrimination to not allow their partner to be covered too.
Gaycare, coming to a city near you! Oh well, it’s “just” another million dollar a year bene for the “workers” in SF. Just wonder where they will “find” the money since they are already broke. I used to work in SF, near one of the city’s corporation yards. Any time after 2 p.m. the alley alongside our building was parked solid with “city workers” in their trucks sleeping until they could drive down the block and punch out. The other fun group was the “Pothole Patrol.” Ever see six men all trying to “level” a two foot square patch of asphalt at the same time? Talk about Detroit, SF has been the union workers “paradise” just as long.
Nothing a city in the red needs more than to find more reasons to spend more money it doesn’t have.
Not that I want to know. Up our ass or down our throats.
.270 130 gr. "HOT".
No favoritism intended. But I caught some of Bill o Really talking to Ted “I could’ve been Trump” Offal. I thought BOR ha a point. I thought Ted should shift from eating crap to eating brains.
Discriminatory. Tell the straights to stop being such wimps. Gay domestic partners? How is that proven. Why isn’t it possible they are just roommates? Get old Steve and Bill on camera being REAL teabaggers for proof. This crap drives me crazy. Discrimination is discrimination. Sometimes it seems we’d rather cry about it than take action.
And with the support of Google, Yahoo, and AOL.
Well, not quite sure what you’d have me do that I haven’t done. I contacted the corporate legal office shortly after joining the company; had this very discussion with them. It was an interesting discussion; the guy was cool, etc., and very polite. He heard me out, then said “So....your previous employer allowed you to put your significant other on your health insurance? Really??” I said “Yep...sure did; yet you guys won’t....unless, of course, my significant other was a man.” He acknowledged my point readily and summed it up by saying “You know, you’ve given me...us...a lot to think about here. Thank you. We really need to delve more into this.”
I think he meant it. We’ll see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.