Bruce Kesler of Democracy Project e-mailed me a link to this article about a Washington State woman who is challenging her former employer’s policy of providing “domestic-partner benefits to same-sex couples but not unmarried straight partners.” In her complaint filed with the state Human Rights Commission, Miss Sandi Scott-Moore claims Honeywell, her erstwhile employer, is violating the state’s new gay-rights law.
Unfortunately, I think Miss Scott-Moore has a strong case under the new law. As Joe Marra, a Seattle employment attorney told the Seattle Times: “The law says you can’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And it appears that Honeywell is discriminating against unmarried heterosexuals by not offering them the same benefits it offers to unmarried gays.
While it may appear discriminatory, Honeywell, just like a number of corporations offers domestic partnership benefits to unmarried same-sex couples (and not unmarried straight ones) because that no state (save Massachusetts) recognizes gay marriages.
If Miss Scott-Moore — or any other employee of such a company — was shacking up with her (or his) different-sex beloved and wanted benefits, all she would need do is go on down to the county courthouse (or wherever they get marriage licenses in the Evergreen State) and get married. Since an individual living with his (or her) same-sex beloved couldn’t do that, companies provide a means for them to get the benefits whcih they have long been offering married employees.
While Honeywell does not offer benefits to unmarried different-sex couples, “a recent Hewitt Associates study” found that among companies offering domestic partnership benefits, “58 percent extended them to both gay and straight employees.” I personally think those companies policies discourage marriage*, but respect the right of each enterprise to set its own employment policies.
Similarly, Honeywell should be free to offer domestic partnership benefits only to those who could not have their unions sanctioned by the state. One reason I oppose non-discrimination laws is that they deprive corporations of the freedom to set their own employment policies.
Honeywell has a sound policy which takes account of existing social/political realities. It provides a means for employees who cannot get marriage licenses to get the benefits the companies offers to married employees. It would be a shame it Washington State’s gay-rights’ legislation would end this sensible private-sector solution.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
*I believe company policies which offer benefits to both same-sex and different-sex couples are anti-marriage because they put couples shacking up together on the same level as married couples, as employees don’t need to get married to have the benefits of marriage. Since states do not recognize same-sex unions, companies, which extend benefits to such unions (and not different-sex unmarried couples) correct for a flaw in government policy. I understand that some such policies have sunset provisions to take effect when the state recognizes same-sex unions.
i’m not against the law but his one clearly has unintended consequences
Just curious. Do companies generally require any verification that a couple is a “couple”?
In the military it’s possible to claim a variety of relations as “dependants.” I never tried so I don’t know what the rules for that are. It just seems to me that we ought to set things up to encourage domestic cooperation, if it involves your partner or your elderly mother or your siblings or their children. But it should involve actual domestic cooperation rather than simply getting yourself signed up to someone’s medical plan.
#2 Synova — August 26, 2006 @ 9:08 pm – August 26, 2006
Just curious. Do companies generally require any verification that a couple is a “couple”?
I believe that I know what you mean, but I’m not going to speculate. I’ll give you an example from personal experience when I was working in-house in a small hi-tech company in Massachusetts (which at the time had and still has an anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation).
The company’s DP policy was as follows. The company would grant domestic partner benefits if
(i) the partner was of the same sex as the employee;
(ii) the partner and the employee were residing together in their principal residence;
(iii) if the partner and the employee stopped residing together in their principal residence, the employee could not thereafter claim domestic partner benefits for another domestic partner within a set time period (I believe it was one year).
There were a few other conditions, but those were the primary ones.
I–as the company’s only in-house lawyer–was involved in the committee that negotiated the issue with the company. The rationale for the first condition (i) was that–at the time–only opposite sex couples could marry in Massachusetts. Obviously, that would go by the wayside now. And, quite frankly, more than a few companies that had instituted DP benefits before the “gay marriage” decision in MA have decided to get rid of them now that same-sex couples can marry.
The rationales for (ii) and (iii) were to limit or reign in the possibility that people would sign up people who were merely their short-time roommates for DP benefits. Nobody–including the gay people–in the company had a problem with that, even though there is a bit of a possible discrimination there. After they were told that divorces among straight people oftentimes take more than a year to finalize, the dissenting gay people were OK with those provisions.
2: In many cases the answer is yes. oonce company I’m aware requires proof that the partners reside in the same location, have some sort of assets jointly, can show a length of time, etc. This company gives great partner benefits, but it’s just another way to show the hoops same sex partners have to go through as opposed to male/female couples who simply have to show a piece of paper that cost around $30 proving that they’re married. (actually, if that – in this company, you simply go online and enter your spouse/dependent information online and that’s that)
Seems another reason why same sex couples should have equal opportunity under the law…then employers wouldn’t have to get involved in this issue – partner benefits would simply exist for everyone who can get married – whether they be same sex or opposite sex couples.
“Cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation”…
It is a poor sword that cannot cut both ways. Or: Be careful what you ask for…
Identity Politics will always end up twisting us into pretzels.
We should have advocated, all along, for “A civil union benefit that applies to a monogamous union of two people who are not allowed by law to be married – a benefit that will be sunsetted when and if they are ever allowed to be married.”
No polygamists, please. No Aunt Frida and Housekeeper Sally – nope, not a monogamous union. No Jack and Fred and William and Malcolm – we don’t do polygamy here. No to Calvin and his Beloved Cow – keep bestiality hidden in the barn, please.
I think this ambiguity is one area that would make businesses back and acvocate for at the very least civil unions, if not outright marriage. It would make benefits much easier to define and offer.
As for heterosexual living together, I will admit that most people I know who are heterosexual and living together choose not to marry, because they dont value the institution very much-extending benefits to them, reinforces this belief, although I think a company will have a hard time defending why gays but not heterosexuals in these situations.
If states permitted civil unions or marriages, then company’s could simply say-you have to have a civil union or marriage if you want benefits period.
I do recall not long after Mass started recognizing gay marriages that some company’s dropped their domestic partner benefits, and a lot of people were outraged over it. Most of the outrage I thought was pure whining. But I did feel badly for the homosexual couples that lived in NH but commuted to Mass for work.
But I think companies actually have a vested interest in encouraging states to sanction gay unions.
I guess Michael #5 wants to raise the Stop Sign on the usual scenario raised by those on the Right seeking to protect the institution of marriage against those on the Left who seek to gut it, reduce it to the lowest common denominator or push it aside as they did morals and prudent sexual restraint in the 1960s… only this time it’s not gay marriage, just gay partner benefits. Same game, different angle.
Unfortuantely there are an awful lot of sick people on the Left who would like to see Grannie Ruth get her daughter’s medical benefits… or Uncle Raj get those benefits for the 14 yr old Indonesian HouseBoy… heck, let’s just shortcut all this nonsense and mandate the govt to pay for medical insurance for all, life insurance for all, sick leave for all, worker comp for all even if your don’t work and all of it should all be done on a -0- copay basis. Oh wait, Hillary’s already made that recommendation when she was Co-President of the United States? Nevermind, then.
Heck, why don’t we just take over the insurance industry and their private reserves so that gays and shacked-up singles can have access to full benefits… govt could manage that kind of public benefit like they do Social Security.
With the savings from removing the evil profit margin that greedy insurance companies require, we can extend it to the multiple spousal unions, the barn yard serial daters and others later… when those victims get the ACLU to sue on the basis of denial of civil rights.
I just knew when the Y extended the definition of “Family” to include unmarried people residing at the same home, it’d be a slippery slope from which society would never recover… and ultimately cost taxpayers in the end.
Here’s to a fast slide down the trough on a cushion of mud!
No wonder the folks on the Right call it a culture war. We continue to make a farce of societal institutions to a point where no one save the 2d century Roman elite will recognize what motivates the people of this land. Self interest for all!
I think that the first step onto the slippery slope was the nuclear family, actually. I recall many years ago listening to some idiot Democrat (Boxer, perhaps, when she was “new”) explaining how unfair it was that some family had to take care of grandma. As if grandma isn’t *family*.
That’s not to say that insurance and employee benefits can absorb unlimited payouts. It’s a serious problem. It would just be nice if a realistic solution that *encouraged* domestic cooperation could be found… where the incentives favor co-dependance and pooling resources rather than splintering family resources or punishing people for supporting family members beyond the nuclear.
Synova, here in Michigan we allow care givers a $4,500 tax credit for part of the expenses used to take care of an elderly family member in their home –frankly, we ought to make it about $25K tax DEDUCTION and paid for out of the MediCare funds Michigan receives for “alternative” programs because it likely saves 2x-3x that amount if that family member were cared for in a nursing home. I also think we ought to encourage that kind of self-less caregiving… not encourage warehousing seniors.
What we shouldn’t do is move those costs over to private insurance programs just because a progressive company has a policy of extending benefits to domestic partners… and we shouldn’t reward str8 couples who shack up.
More than anything, this case and Dan’s post ought to make us– the gay community– pause for a moment and realize that advocating public policy sometimes has unintended consequences that “bites” our community in the end. When the Democrats in Michigan thought it’d be politically prudent to add domestic partner prohibitions to the anti-gay marriage Amendment –and thereby get a broader base of support for voting against the Amendment– little did they know that they’d just encourage a larger margin of defeat at the polls and little corporate contribution to the effort to defeat the proposal.
You’re right, we need to adopt policies that encourage cooperation in the family unit. And I’d add, avoid policies which pander to the self-interests of the few.
#9 Michigan-Matt — August 28, 2006 @ 8:46 am – August 28, 2006
Synova, here in Michigan we allow care givers a $4,500 tax credit for part of the expenses used to take care of an elderly family member in their home –frankly, we ought to make it about $25K tax DEDUCTION…
I am unfamiliar with the state income tax structure in Michigan, but it strikes me that both of these would primarily benefit high-income Michiganders. I suspect, but cannot prove, that the state income tax credit that you are referring to is not a “refundable” credit, such as the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”), which gives the taxpayer money back if the amount of the credit is higher than the income tax owed. And a US$25K tax deduction for state income tax purposes might be nice, but only if someone earns more that, say US$25K. Assuming that we are referring to retirees, that amount might include pensions and earnings from investments (and their earnings from being greeters at Wal-Mart), but it would not include, for example, social security payments.
Moreover, I suspect, but cannot prove, that the state income tax credit (and your proposed US$25K tax deduction) would be for out of pocket expenses that are actually paid to third-party care-givers. That means that, if a person cannot afford to pay a third party care-giver to provide care, he or she will not qualify for either the credit or the deduction. If that person either chooses to, or, by finanicial circumstances is required to, provide care him- or her-self, he or she is out of luck with your proposal.
So, to put it succinctly, the people who would primarily benefit from the Michigan plan (as exists or as amended as you propose) are those who are most likely to least need the financial help from the credit OR the deduction.
BTW, regarding “our community,” what is your proposal as to what should be done with a gay person who requires care, but who has no family? No children. No parents. Maybe there’s a 3d cousin twice removed, but I doubt very seriously that they would be interested in providing care, unless they might inherit something from the gay person. Income tax credits and income tax deductions don’t really provide much solace in that situation.
raj at #10, what part of “you aren’t worthy of debate” don’t you comprehend? What you think, bloviate on, or spew has no bearing on reality or the truth and, frankly, isn’t worth reading –let alone comment.
You have a task at hand, sockpuppet. Atone. Do that, I welcome your input in the debate. Of course you can lure others into debate –their choice entirely. But for me, raj, your past conduct puts you beyond the pale.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pal2.htm
#11 Michigan-Matt — August 29, 2006 @ 8:09 am – August 29, 2006
Ah, another concession from the MightyRighty from Michigan. That’s at least two on the same page here.
“heck, let’s just shortcut all this nonsense and mandate the govt to pay for medical insurance for all, life insurance for all, sick leave for all, worker comp for all even if your don’t work and all of it should all be done on a -0- copay basis.”
Great idea, MM!! I’ve been saying that for years! The sooner we get nationalized healthcare for EVEryone, the better off we’ll all be.
ndtovent, I bet you would given that a) you probably don’t even pay taxes that would support those govt benefits, b) likely don’t have gainful employment that would provide a basis for payroll taxes, and c) like most GayLeftists –you’ve probably spent most of your life living off others.
It’s ok ndtovent. It won’t happen in this decade… the Democrats will need to control all three branches of govt to get that kind of welfare extension up and operating.
bzzzzzt, try again raj. Your debate card is being held at the front desk. Send an adult to pick it up.
#14 – “bzzzzzt!” — LOL…MM, I’d take that bet, because you’d be dead wrong on all 3 guesses.
Right, ndtovent. Is that the Brooklyn Bridge behind you with a “Sale” sign on it? LOL
#15 Michigan-Matt — August 30, 2006 @ 8:32 am – August 30, 2006
bzzzzzt, try again raj. Your debate card is being held at the front desk.
Still no response to my comment. No surprise. You have no response. I am correct, and you, MightyRighty, are not.
On the subject of the post, I hate to give Danny of LaLaLand, das Land des HappyEnds, a grammar lesson. But, let’s proceed. Danny of LaLaLand wrote:
I believe company policies (i) which offer benefits to both same-sex and different-sex couples are anti-marriage because they put couples shacking up together on the same level as married couples, as employees don’t need to get married to have the benefits of marriage. Since states (ii) do not recognize same-sex unions, companies(iii), (iv) which extend benefits to such unions (and not different-sex unmarried couples) correct for (v) a flaw in government policy. I understand that some such policies have sunset provisions to take effect when the state recognizes same-sex unions.
Indicia added, of course, for Danny’s benefit.
Let’s understand something. (i) should have been “that” instead of “which,” as any proper American grammarian would tell you. The same with (iv).
(ii) is obviously incorrect. Not grammatically incorrect, but substantively incorrect. I suppose that DannyBoi forgot about VT, MA and CT. (Comes from living in LaLaLand, I guess.) The problem, that Danny apparently wishes to ignore is the fact that his beloved National Republikanische Partei wants to ignore the decisions of the states that want to recognize same-sex unions.
(iv) is, indeed a grammatical error. It should be “companies that,” not “companies, which“.
Regarding (v), well of course it is a flaw in government policy. In your government policy. And what do you propose to do about it? Why, it is obvious. Vote the same people in who provided you with a flawed government policy.
Thanks, Danny, for your support. Don’t expect much from me when you next come a’callin’.
#13 ndtovent — August 29, 2006 @ 5:14 pm – August 29, 2006
One of the things that the MightyRighty Matty from Michigan apparently fails to recognize is that General Motors and Ford, two of the primary employers from his (presumptive) home state of Michigan, are pretty much already “under water” from their pension and health-care promises to their retirees, and will probably be in Chapter 11 (that’s bankruptcy) in the not too distant future to get rid of those obligations.
Unless, of course, the companies can throw their obligations off onto the federal taxpayer. (Which they can and probably will do, as I will describe.)
So, what does that mean? It pretty much means socialization of retiree benefits (via the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.) and medical care (via Medicare, et al.), regardless of whether or not the MightyRighties want it to happen. The problem that federal taxpayers have is the fact that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.–since its inception in the early 1970s–hasn’t been charging the corporations, whose pension benefits that they are supposedly guaranteeing, a reasonable premium based on actuarial data. In other words, and to put it succincly, the federal government and the federal taxpayer have been subsidizing corporations’ profligate operations.
And, after GM and Ford go Chapter 11 to get rid of these pension and medical-care obligations, the whole house of cards of the MightyRighties will come tumblin’ down. It really is as simple as that.
I love bantering. Just something about it that tickles me (hot) pink (lol)…
Seriously, though… We are the only fully developed, industrialized country in the world, other than South Africa, that doesn’t provide healthcare for its citizens. We could design a system which would be the envy of the world if the powers that be would just acknowledge the importance and urgency of this need and frigging cooperate with each other (meaning the “big, bad” inusrance execs and the poiticians)! It wouldn’t have to be exactly like the systems they have in Europe and Canada. Those systems aren’t working all that well these days, anyway. I would like to see a compromise. First, cover ALL children under 18, for everything, period. Second, nationalize the types of care that are really essential for our well being, and that keep us going — heavily subsidize catastrophic conditions for patients (i.e. major surgeries, chemo/radiation treatments for cancer, etc.). Also heavily subsidize long term, prescription drugs for chronic conditions. For everything in between, charge the patients. In other words, charge much higher patient co-pays for those conditions “in-between” hangnail and catastrophic. Also charge patients more for short term prescriptions. We would still have a chunk of our own hard-earned $ going to big biz — the insurance companies and the pharmacueticals — but maybe, just MAYbe, with a system such as this (or similar), middle/upper middle income people/families wouldn’t be driven into bankruptcy just becuase mom had to have her galbladder out. Slight exageration there, but it’s getting to that point in the U.S.!! — where even upper middle class income earners are feeling the pinch. Many middle class/poorer families can’t begin to afford health insurance becuase of the ungodly premiums, let alone pay out of pocket for anything major. I think it’s an abomination that hoards of our honored senior citizens have to make treks to Canada and Mexico just to get affordable prescription medications — the same gd drugs that we take, made by the same drug companies!! Can you believe this, in the most powerful, plentiful nation in the world??! And yes, companies, and all fed., state, and local govt’s should be required to provide spousal benefits to GLBT partners, but if we had nationalized healthcare, spousal/partner benefits would be a non-issue. Something’s got to give, and eventually, it will.
bzzzzzt, try again raj. Your debate card is being held at the front desk. Send an adult to pick it up.
This is a FALSE argument. Actually, a more pertinent argument is the recently and narrowly decided Washington State Supreme Court decision maintaining marriage as between a man and a woman.
If that is State law, then unmarried heterosexual couples have an option for receiving benefits that gay couples do not — get married!
There’s no “unintended” consequence of the law in this regard, and an equal protection argument should win the day with Ms. Scott-Moore sorely disappointed.
This is funny as heck.
MightyRighty Matty from Michigan #21, like Robert “No-Facts” Novak, presents no facts to counter my contentions in #19. The very odd thing is that the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Munich’s newspaper of record) coincidentally this very morning had several articles along the lines that I had described yesterday.
I guess MightyRighty Matty is indeed bereft of facts. Or he wishes to ignore facts that do not conform to his preconceived notions.
raj bloviates: “Or he wishes to ignore facts that do not conform to his preconceived notions.”
Wrong on both counts raj/Ian/blah sockpuppet. You have yet to prove you are worthy of debate. You have some atoning to do for the past statements you’ve made; get serious, atone and reenter the world of civilized debate.
Or, as you’ve done for the last 5-6 weeks, continue to carp from beyond the pall and be dismissed. Your choice. You don’t call the shots, raj/Ian/blah, with your continued dishonest conduct.