A memo sent to the Globe’s Boston Newspaper Guild members, and obtained by the Herald, states that Massachusetts gay Guild employees can extend their benefits to their partners only if they marry.
“An employee who currently covers a same-sex domestic partner as a dependent will have to marry his or her partner by Jan. 1 for the employee benefits coverage to continue at the employee rates,” the memo states.
The policy change at the Globe, which devotes extensive coverage to gay issues, opens a new can of worms in the Bay State as employers rethink their domestic partner benefits in the wake of the legalization of gay marriage in 2004.
Benefits for domestic partners were originally offered to gay employees because they couldn’t legally marry, said Ilene Robinson Sunshine, a lawyer at Sullivan & Worcester.
Now that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts companies that offer benefits to gay employees’ partners risk hearing cries of discrimination from unmarried straight couples.
That’s going to be nothing compared to the cries of foul from gay couples who were benefiting under the previous policy, but had no intention of getting married.
I hope they remember who to complain to.
See, this is what happens when you let the state get mixed up in private volitional freedom of association matters.
A can-0-worms has been opened
You have to give an old tip of the hat to Canadian Business. The guy who thought this up ought to get a raise.
A very interesting way to use a law, to save pension money. Actually I find it pretty funny.
For how long now have people said marriage is just a piece of paper.
Well to me , it seems not. This may force people to revaluate there relationships. In a positive way I hope.
As for gays, well the radicals got there wish. Now you have to be married for any benefits.
I find that deliciously ironic.
Like we libertarians & conservatives have said for years. If you take rights from one group to give to another, expect someday to lose yours. Worse though by far is to be expected now to act responsibly.
I love it lol. (O:}
It looks like they caught 22 in the arse.
I’m gay and I’m married. I’ve been to London Pride today, and am still wearing my Conservative Party T-Shirt that reads Homos for Harper.
Let me tell you what, there are a lot of seriously intolerant gay people out there, especially if they are NDP. It’s ironic to me, they get all upset and angry that I am a Conservative. Why? Because they are relying on rumours and pre-existing prejudice, not facts. That’s the same mindset as people who don’t want gay people to have equal rights.
Last night a dyke singer got up on stage and said Stephen Harper was the worst PM in 20 years. What the hell was that statement based on? Certainly not the facts of what the PM has done while in office. She is just parroting what the NDP and Liberals have scared her into believing. Thus my decidig to do the rest of Pride in my Homos for Harper t-shirts.
Of course gay people should have to be married to get benefits that are available only to heteros who are married. Otherwise it would be a nightmare to continually update for heteros and homos who break up and get new lovers. As well as blantantly discriminatory to heteros living in sin.
You can’t have equal rights without having equal responsibilities.
Um, that was the Boston Globe, Revnant Dream, not the Globe & Mail; it was not a Canadian business. Not to put too fine a point on it, just a minor point for the record.
I agree with much of what you say, Kyla, particularly on the matter of responsibility as the cornerstone of freedom, though I might find myself debating you at the margin on the details of marriage versus civil union, and, indeed, gay (political) versus homosexual (human rights) issues.
It does seem to me though that, as a good friend of mine, who is a happily married, loving, supportive, rational father, said: why do you people (meaning hetero- and homo-sexual) feel the urge to get the state’s rubber stamp of approval, in the form of some sort of official decree, edict, or dispensation, on your private affairs? Why isn’t this, fundamentally, a matter of private contractual agreement between consenting adults?
If it’s only human rights and taxes, then that’s not really about sexuality, is it? We’re all human citizens. If it’s about religions, well, they are private clubs, what business is that of the state? And if it’s about the children (and this is very important), then it should be about the children, not about the adults.
I guess, to me, if human rights means freedom from harrassment, that’s a good thing, and if human rights means freedom to harrass, that’s a bad thing.
You may want, Kyla, if you’re not already familiar with it, to check out online.logcabin.org – The Log Cabin Republicans. Lastly, just to head ’em off at the pass, before anyone bothers to harrass me on the basis of my biased sexual-orientation perspective, don’t bother, I’m not biased, I’m post-sexual. (Quick, someone call the National Enquirer, they’ve found Spock.)
I give a rousing “hear hear” to Kyla’s statement. It’s in for a penny, in for a pound, folks. You wanted the marriage option? You got it, along with all the obligations, burdens and responsibilites which come with.
That was a perfectly sound business decision. This company was clearly trying to be progressive and tolerant by extending benefits to domestic partners. Since marriage is now an option, the can revert to the standard model which says benefits are for spouses only.
Huzzah.
Vitruvius:
The reason rights recognized by civil unions are not equal to marriage rights is simple. If you are married, and you cross a border, you are still married. If you are in a civil union, the moment you leave that jurisdiction, you are strangers in the eyes of the law.
My mother would most assuredly sue to break any private legal contract in an attempt to put my wife and child on the street and take any insurance money or assets I would leave upon my death. If she were successful, and I was unmarried, she would then be my legal next of kin. If I had a Civil Union in Ontario, but died in the USA – my mother would be my legal next of kin.
Luckily, I have full equal rights now, am married, and do not have to be concerned if my wife and child will be cared for after I die. That makes me feel a whole lot better.
I’m off to march in the Pride Parade, wearing my Homos for Harper Conservative Party T-Shirt, and ready to challenge blantantly prejudiced, extremely politically ignorant, gay people.
Could all the people saying gay people are not okay about this please point to a single gay person that has actually complained about it?
Well said Kyla! Either it is about equal rights or it is about MORE equal rights. Can’t have it both ways.
Vitruvius–sadly that is what the argument usually boils down to–the freedom to harrass.
Actually, Kyla, your arrangement is not recognized in all jurisdictions. Rather, you strengthen my argument. The state should not be able to monkey around with a private contractual arrangement you have made, and that includes the provisions of your will. Because we allow the state to do some such monkeying, people in situations where the monkeying isn’t in their favour aren’t happy, and rightly so.
The problem is, instead of demanding that the state quit monkeying around, irrational people demand more state monkeying around, and the endless parade of unintendend consequences marches on by.
And, George, there are people of every sort who are using so-called positive rights to harass others, independent of their sexuality, theology, politics, what have you. It’s the negative rights, like the fundamental freedoms as we call them in Canada, the protect you from legal harassment.
Real human rights all sound like this: “The state is not allowed to restrain individual humans from doing blah blah blah.”
Sorry if I sound more argumentative than I intend, in the above comments, Kyla, for the record I’m delighted to hear that you’re “wearing my Homos for Harper Conservative Party T-Shirt, and ready to challenge blantantly prejudiced, extremely politically ignorant, gay people”. Right (as they say) on.
It’s true, right now, US customs won’t let me fill out the head of household form. My family members have to fill out individual forms. But, court cases are making their way through the system for Americans married in Canada who return to the USA. The marriage treaty between Canada and the US states that marriages performed in Canada are legal in the USA. There’s no ‘except for queers’ clause. Eventually they will be upheld and have legal standing.
I sold 3 more Homos for Harper T-shirts today at pride. And, I educated a whole bunch of folks who think all gay people have to hold the same political beliefs. I marched next in line after the NDP.
A bit off topic, but if anyone is interested in a Conservative American view of PMSH visit to Washington. This is a must read.
From the National Post
MARTIN SIEFF: Who would have thought Bush would find an ally to the north? “America’s New Best Friend” 07/07 5:30 AM
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWE4Y2YwODg2ZGIyOTE3NzFlMTM3NTMyNDI0OTI1NDI=
Why are we 10 years or more behind the most democratic countries? Because we listen to Religious fanatics in the USA. We have our own policy. Why do we listen to these people. That’s the trouble with religion. It’s a crock.