This is what EQUALITY looks like, boyz 'n grrls!! This is only going to increase the number of queers getting married — I hope Dobson and Falwell have an apoplectic FIT !!!

Get married or lose your benefits, gays told

quote:

---

(Boston, Massachusetts) Many of Massachusetts' largest employers are dropping health benefits for unmarried gay couples. The firms say that since Massachusetts became the only state to legalize same-sex marriage seven months ago, gays no longer should receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that are not made available to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Some employers say that with health care premiums rising at double-digit rates every year, providing health benefits to any employee is an issue, let alone to their partners.

The Boston Globe reported that IBM, Raytheon, Northeastern University and Boston Medical Center are among the companies dropping the domestic partner benefits.

"We're saying if you're a same-sex domestic partner, you now have the same option heterosexuals have, so we have to apply the same rules to you," Larry Emerson, Baystate's vice president of human resources told the Globe.

---

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

I support equal marriage rights for all. Indeed, as I am married myself, I have to acknowledge that the institution of marriage itself is something if value, notwithstanding its flaws. But I do worry somewhat about the legitimization of same sex marriage becoming a means of delegitimizing other significant, nonmarital intimate relationships.

Also, as another matter, there is the whole backlash problem still to contend with. You are right that this decision may give Dobson and Falwell fits. Unfortunately, it could also give them ammo. If Massachusetts follows other US states, (including ostensibly "progressive" states like Oregon) and abolishes SSM by referendum in 2006, will these businesses restore domestic partnership benefits for their legislatively de-married gay employees? Or will those workers be out of luck? If the referendum question is drafted in a sufficiently draconian way, the employers may not even have the choice. In Michigan, for example, the statewide referendum abolishing same sex marriage has also been interpreted to eliminate previously negotiated domestic partner benefits for gay state employees, notwithstanding the fact that they can't access those benefits through getting married, either.

I guess in the end I would be happier if no-one got "coerced" to do anything.

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

In cases such as you mention, though, I've gotta agree with you. But then, as far as I'm concerned, you should b able to share helth and other benefits, and to leave pension and other benefits to any person (brother, sister, spouse, long-time friend or whomever) with whom you share a mutually dependant relationship.

However, all of this is dancing around the REAL central issue, which is that their health care system is corrupt and fucked up. Why should health care costs be so prohibitive? They shouldn't — that issue should be dealt with separately, and US-ians need to get past this bullshit about "socialized medicine". They admire our system, but they won't throw out the bums who refuse to adopt a single-payer system like ours. So who's to blame?

Other benefits should also be dealt with in a similar manner. You should be able to have pension benefits go to anyone that you name (as I pointed out above). But you can't blame companies for treating queer partners as the equals of "het" partners — that's what we say we've been wanting. If the legislature acts to make it grossly unfair again, you can't blame that on companies, either, unless they are paying big bucks to back the anti-gay forces.

But hey, historically queers have a lot in common with the Jews— we're used to having to fight completely unfair, uneven battles and having almost everyone against us (including, frequently, the Jews). If it does come down to that, it won't be anything we haven't faced before.

But, as my friend Wari says, "If we lose Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the union, we might have to start looking at a mass exodus." He's very serious, and I believe him. And Little Boots hasn't even started his second term, yet. It's going to get a lot worse than this, I'm afraid, and I'd rather work to get our people out in time than have them become martyrs to a lost cause.

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

I'd like to believe that if same sex marriage goes to a vote in Mass in 2006, after it's been in effect for two years, the people will actually vote to keep it. The main thing that leads me there is a desire to believe that people's common sense and good judgment will ultimately prevail over naked propaganda and hate-mongering. Of course, by that logic, I also thought Kerry would win the last election.

My wishful thinking about the outcome of such a vote in no way diminishes my belief that referendum voting is a terrible way of trying to decide questions of minority rights.

And all this presumes that the issue will actually still be alive in 2006, i.e. that Bush will not have preempted it with a federal constitutional amendment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
Little boots=Caligula reference Hep?

---

"Give the man the big teddy bear from up in the corner!"

That's my new nick-name for the Dorkus Malorkus-in-Chief. And if someone asks (and you know they will) why I call him "Little Boots", I'll say, "Translated from the more formal Latin, Caligula".

[ 11 December 2004: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

Mass. Companies Refuse To Recognize Gay Marriages

quote:

---

(Boston, Massachusetts) Even though same-sex marriage is legal in the state some of the biggest employers in Massachusetts are refusing to provide benefits to the spouses and children of those workers who have wed.

General Dynamics, FedEx, and NStar are among a major corporations in the state that say they are not bound to provide the benefits. The companies all say that because their health plans are federally regulated they are complying with the federal Defense of Marriage Act which bars same-sex unions.

---