Increasingly, many of the states that have banned gay marriage are beginning to revoke the domestic partner benefits of public employees. One result: local governments are extending benefits more widely, to anyone that an employee might designate.
Elsewhere, convoluted work-arounds are being tried, such as at Michigan State University, which, in order to ensure that no same-sex spouse-like relationship is even hinted at, is extending benefits to those it labels as "other eligible individuals," defined this way:
a person must have lived with a non-unionized Michigan State employee for at least 18 months without being either a tenant or a legal dependent. They also can't be automatically eligible to inherit the employee's assets under Michigan law, which means no children, parents, grandparents or other close relations.
And no spouses, since they are covered under the traditional benefits package. Needless to say, the recordkeeping and administrative burden on employers is greatly increased. And just how privileging nonspousal relationships above committed same-sex coupledom is meant to "strengthen marriage" is anyone's guess.
In a related development, in Virginia, a state which probably leads the nation in the number of times it has banned gay marriage, a small victory was gained when the University of Virginia was permitted to extend gym benefits to same-sex couples. Thus are the steps by which, in some places, progress is measured.
25 Comments for “Outside of Massachusetts”
posted by Brian Miller on
This is the same governmental logic (and “popular vote”) that gave Michigan its insolvent government — and the same groupthink in the population that have GM, Ford and Chrysler on the brink of collapse.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, what MSU is doing is trying to be in compliance with the court’s own decision.
Page 15:
The amendment as written does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship.
The reason all of these keep getting shot down is because they take the lazy-ass method of requiring you to have a legal registration as domestic partners with some legal entity.
But in the private universe, where our plans have to be compliant in several different jurisdictions, we’ve been doing this for years — mainly as a benefit to accomodate heterosexual couples and roommates who don’t want to get married (or can’t), but would like to have non-dependent benefits — by simply conditioning the extension of domestic partner benefits on the two people living together for a prolonged length of time, taking care of each other, and ineligible for coverage for other reasons (not married, non-dependent, etc.).
posted by Brian Miller on
the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship
What a hilarious statement. A more newspeaky phrase couldn’t flow from the pens of Vonnegut or Orwell at their most inspired.
To translate the phrase:
“This law doesn’t forbid the extension of same-sex partner benefits, so long as the same-sex partnership is not explicitly recognized and the organization in question goes out of its way to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Of course, if it goes too far out of its way, everyone will clamor for the benefits so they’ll be cancelled, and if it doesn’t go far enough out of its way, loving Christian conservatives will come to town to make sure that partners and children of gay employees suffer severe financial consequences and possible injury/death by not having health insurance. All of this is okay because a majority of a plurality voted to support it.”
Why *any* gay person would choose to live in such a state, with such lunacy, is beyond me. Get out while the getting is good and go to places where you’re actually appreciated and don’t have to deal with such idiocy!
posted by Xeno on
I pretty much agree with Brian on this one. I’m not going to spend a single dollar on those states, and also, I’ll never buy an American car.
posted by Hugh (Bart) Vincelette on
Having followed the arguments against the redefining of marriage from beginning to the final legalization of same-sex marriage here in Canada; I have drawn several conclusions. The issue; to the religious right; had ; in reality; little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with the irrational opposition to ‘our’ very existence. Apart from specific religious beliefs; the use of lies, slander, defamation and innuendo ; was appalling. I would also call to your attention ; the most barbaric ‘gay bashing’ in ( to the best of my knowledge)recorded history. During the early years of the AIDS epidemic; the religious right fought vehemently in opposition to any funding into HIV and the development of treatment options. The subsequent delay in producing effective medications against this retrovirus denied thousands even a fighting chance at additional life , and assured their demise . I know . I buried fifty-six of the most remarkable persons anyone could ever hope to know in life and call friends .
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I’m not going to spend a single dollar on those states, and also, I’ll never buy an American car.
(rolls eyes) Sure, go ahead and punish American automakers — who have had nondiscrimination policies and offered domestic partner benefits since 2000.
Then go buy a BMW, Acura, or Honda, to name a few.
posted by Brian Miller on
I’d not buy an American car, but it’s because I value durability, performance and economy, not because of anti-gay stuff. However, I certainly don’t spend any time or money in Michigan — and every year during my yearly “send letters to various state chambers of commerce” dispatch, I’m more than happy to explain why to their economic luminaries.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Brian, you like those Japanese rust buckets instead? My Ford Aerostar has over 300,000 Kilometers on it and runs like a top.
posted by John on
I can’t believe Delegate Robert G. Marshall of Virginia believes this will set a precedent that allows gymn members to pay the $270 to bring their dog or cat to the gymn.
Poodles lifting 30 lb bars? Can’t wait to see that!
posted by Brian Miller on
you like those Japanese rust buckets instead
I used to be a “buy American” sort myself (my family goes back in the US automotive business), but I decided to buy the best car without regard for where it’s made.
So far since I adopted that stance, that vehicle has NOT been American (and some American makes, who shall remain nameless, gave me tens of thousands of dollars in repairs and losses over the past 10 years!)
I’m not ruling out buying a US-made product in the future (in fact, many “Japanese” and “Korean” vehicles are actually built in the US, and many “American” ones are built in Canada and Mexico). But I’m not going to go out of my way to do so anymore — it’s just an excuse for laziness on the part of the US manufacturer, who should be busting his butt to create the best car he possibly can.
I suspect having their backs to the wall, once again, will force GM, Ford and Chrysler to stop making excuses and start building quality durable cars worth buying. We shall see!
posted by Xeno on
Then go buy a BMW, Acura, or Honda, to name a few.
BMW is crap, Acura and Honda I don’t really care for. Now, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Audi, Jaguar, Land Rover, and of course, Volkswagen are brands I would shop for, though they don’t make Jags like they used to…
See NDT? Lots of non-American companies offer same-sex benefits as well (although some European brands have been sold to American compagnies).
I’d not buy an American car, but it’s because I value durability, performance and economy, not because of anti-gay stuff.
You can thank the 70’s import quotas on Japanese cars for that. That allowed the Japanese to dominate the mid-range market, while the American giants concentrated on selling crap cars for the masses.
However, I certainly don’t spend any time or money in Michigan — and every year during my yearly “send letters to various state chambers of commerce” dispatch, I’m more than happy to explain why to their economic luminaries.
Seriously though, all I can think of about Michigan for the moment is Amway and Michael Moore.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
See NDT? Lots of non-American companies offer same-sex benefits as well (although some European brands have been sold to American compagnies).
The key word in there being “as well”.
The point was that American auto manufacturers are perfectly “gay-friendly”; and, oddly enough, despite being located in Michigan, THEY haven’t had to repeal their domestic partner benefits.
Now how is it that Democrat-dominated state governmental entities are required by law to do so — or so they say — but those evil Republican-dominated businesses don’t?
Furthermore, you might want to keep this in mind; the cars that are best in terms of “durability, reliability, and performance” are usually built here in the US or in Japan — by non-unionized autoworkers.
The Big Three is almost 100% unionized — and they build what you consider “crap” cars, with poor performance, bad quality, and shoddy workmanship. But at least you should get the warm feeling inside when you buy one that the guy who was too lazy to align your wiring harness correctly and left you with a true disco dashboard has healthcare for life.
posted by Xeno on
The key word in there being “as well”.
The point was that American auto manufacturers are perfectly “gay-friendly”; and, oddly enough, despite being located in Michigan, THEY haven’t had to repeal their domestic partner benefits.
Straw man, didn’t argue about the employee policies of these compagnies. I’m talkinag about the state in general.
Now how is it that Democrat-dominated state governmental entities are required by law to do so — or so they say — but those evil Republican-dominated businesses don’t?
Those compagnies aren’t really republican supporters. They mainly support the car lobbyists and spend money on both parties in order to remove obstacles away from them.
Furthermore, you might want to keep this in mind; the cars that are best in terms of “durability, reliability, and performance” are usually built here in the US or in Japan — by non-unionized autoworkers.
I don’t care about unions. I would still rather buy a car made in Mexico (Volkswagen) or Europe. What matters is a good product, and that usually requires happy employees.
The Big Three is almost 100% unionized — and they build what you consider “crap” cars, with poor performance, bad quality, and shoddy workmanship. But at least you should get the warm feeling inside when you buy one that the guy who was too lazy to align your wiring harness correctly and left you with a true disco dashboard has healthcare for life.
Too bad, some nonunionized workers tend to make a lot more than they do and produce much better cars. Furthermore, I’m a strong supporter of cooperative enterprises, where it is in the interest of the employees to produce a great product that will sell.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Straw man, didn’t argue about the employee policies of these compagnies. I’m talkinag about the state in general.
May I remind you of your original statement, Xeno?
I’m not going to spend a single dollar on those states, and also, I’ll never buy an American car.
The statement there is clear; you’re going to punish American auto companies, even though they have offered domestic partner benefits for years and continue to do so, because of where they’re located.
WHY, exactly, are you punishing companies who ARE doing what’s right just because their location doesn’t suit you?
posted by Brian Miller on
you’re going to punish American auto companies
Uhhh. . . not buying something isn’t exactly “punishing” someone.
they have offered domestic partner benefits for years
Only to the unionized workforce (in most cases). For instance, Chrysler offers DP health benefits to its unionized assembly workers, but many of its white-collar employees are exempt from the agreement and often cannot get such benefits for themselves. I know one such couple who work at Chrysler myself.
Again, ND-30, you need to become acquainted with the facts before going on rants.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am rather acquainted with the facts, thank you.
Now, since I have produced a referenceable link that makes it clear that DaimlerChrysler offers domestic partner benefits to its employees, you will produce one that backs up your claim that its white-collar employees are not offered domestic partner benefits.
You claim to have facts. Provide them, with references.
posted by Brian Miller on
a referenceable link that makes it clear that DaimlerChrysler offers domestic partner benefits to its employees
ND, don’t you get tired of me kicking your ass? 😉
The story on DaimlerChrysler’s partner benefits:
At DaimlerChrysler, only Chrysler Division employees will qualify,
Ergo, no Mercedes-Benz or Chrysler technologies employees. And no employees who aren’t covered by the UAW’s collective bargaining agreement, as explained in *every single* major press story on the issue:
The move followed a commitment to study the benefit that the corporations made as part of their current contract with the United Auto Workers and other labor unions; the Canadian Auto Workers had previously won similar benefits.
Since white collar workers aren’t typically members of the UAW (or CAW in Canada), they don’t benefit from the extension of the benefits except when they negotiate such a package (as, again, has been explained in most in-depth coverage of the issue).
Please stop embarrassing yourself. It’s painful to read.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ergo, no Mercedes-Benz or Chrysler technologies employees.
Which is why the list of gay-friendly car companies Xeno cited above includes Mercedes-Benz.
Right. You insist Mercedes doesn’t provide DP benefits, Xeno insists they do. Who is correct?
Next, to deal with your attempt to find a quote to fit your statement.
The benefit will be available to partnered gays and lesbians among 159,000 hourly and salaried Ford employees, 152,000 hourly and 52,000 salaried GMC employees, and 71,200 hourly and 29,000 salaried Chrysler employees.
That adds up to a total of 100,200 Chrysler employees. You insisted that Chrysler was not covering all its employees.
However, when one looks back to when the merger happened, one might note this.
The third biggest U.S. automaker, Chrysler has 94,300 U.S. employees and a 16 percent share of new vehicle sales in the United States this year.
In short, Chrysler was covering a number of employees that was greater than the total number of employees it had in the United States at the time of the merger with Daimler barely two years before.
And the reason “only Chrysler division employees were covered” is that Mercedes-Benz has its OWN program.
Do you really think Daimler-Chrysler would have gotten a perfect score from HRC if they EXCLUDED employees from domestic partner benefits? Moreover, where ARE these employees, since the Chrysler Group, according to your own citation, covered an amount equal to (or greater than) its entire population in the United States?
And no employees who aren’t covered by the UAW’s collective bargaining agreement, as explained in *every single* major press story on the issue:
Except this one.
The Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Daimler-Chrysler Corp. jointly announced that starting Aug. 1, they will offer the benefits to the domestic partners of all employees who had shared a ?committed relationship for no less than six months.? The benefits are not being offered to unmarried heterosexual couples.
Please provide a quote that states specifically that Chrysler does not offer domestic partner benefits to nonunion employees. It really is just that simple.
As for your braggadocio, that invariably happens whenever you post a rant of your own unsupported by facts — and then try to bully your way out of it. I’m used to it by now — and the silence that follows when you decide to cut your losses.
posted by Brian Miller on
Do you really think Daimler-Chrysler would have gotten a perfect score from HRC if they EXCLUDED employees from domestic partner benefits?
I don’t know what’s funnier — the fact that you’re now an advocate for HRC (a Democratic Party front group), or the fact that you’re still dead wrong.
Get back to me when you actually know someone who works at Daimler-Chrysler Motors, who is going through this situation right now (and considering leaving with the Chrysler side as a result of the Daimler side’s lack of DP benefits).
You can lecture my friend all you want on how his situation doesn’t exist and how HRC’s web site proves it, but he’ll probably just get annoyed and punch you in the nose.
Then again, something tells me it wouldn’t be the first time someone has done something like that to you! 😉
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t know what’s funnier — the fact that you’re now an advocate for HRC (a Democratic Party front group), or the fact that you’re still dead wrong.
If you look at HRC’s scorecard for companies, it’s quite objective; there’s very little ability for them to insert their admittedly-leftist and Democrat alignment into it.
Furthermore, given that Democrats and leftists are ANTI-business and want to prove that corporate America is depriving workers of benefits, why on earth would HRC give a company a perfect score if there was even the slightest inkling that Daimler-Chrysler was doing that? Their inclination is to bash corporations, not praise them.
And now for this:
Get back to me when you actually know someone who works at Daimler-Chrysler Motors, who is going through this situation right now (and considering leaving with the Chrysler side as a result of the Daimler side’s lack of DP benefits).
Wait a minute.
Previously you claimed this:
Only to the unionized workforce (in most cases). For instance, Chrysler offers DP health benefits to its unionized assembly workers, but many of its white-collar employees are exempt from the agreement and often cannot get such benefits for themselves. I know one such couple who work at Chrysler myself.
Before you claimed this “friend” wasn’t getting benefits in the first place because Chrysler doesn’t offer them to employees like him who are “white-collar” and aren’t unionized.
But now you’re saying that this “friend” has to consider going with Chrysler because, in contrast to your claim about Daimler, Chrysler DOES offer DP benefits to employees like him.
Isn’t it amazing that you invoke an unverifiable “friend” to whom this is allegedly happening, versus providing a clear citation that a) Chrysler does not offer DP benefits to non-unionized employees and b) as part of the un-merging, Daimler is removing domestic partner benefits?
posted by Brian Miller on
I’m not going to violate my friend’s privacy in order to “explain” my knowledge (cited in an industry article you chose to ignore, as well) to a pseudonymous troll, sorry.
Before you claimed this “friend” wasn’t getting benefits in the first place because Chrysler doesn’t offer them to employees like him who are “white-collar” and aren’t unionized.
Precisely right — and the thing that’s changing this is the Cerberus splitoff.
Because like most other people who are informed with the actual news, I’m aware that DaimlerChrysler Motors Corporation will be ceasing to exist within weeks’ time, and the result of the split will be mitigation of DP benefit issues for Chrysler Corporation LLC employees.
And no, I’m not going to “verify” that Chrysler is being split off from Daimler, either.
as part of the un-merging, Daimler is removing domestic partner benefits?
Daimler has never offered DP benefits to its employees — as the article I cited shows, and as anyone who works for the Mercedes side knows.
Given that certain operations shared by the Daimler and Chrysler sides are staying with Daimler, many are considering their options, and DP benefits will likely send them to the “new” Chrysler.
Again, given that you have no familiarity with the auto marketplace and didn’t even know that DaimlerChrysler was splitting up, I’m not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you. Pound your chest and scream if you must — you’ve already demonstrated that you’re not interested in real life to the degree that you’re interested in being “right” as an armchair quarterback from San Francisco, Dallas, or wherever you’re claiming to be living these days.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Daimler has never offered DP benefits to its employees — as the article I cited shows, and as anyone who works for the Mercedes side knows.
Which is why Xeno cited above a specific website outlining Mercedes-Benz as a gay-friendly brand — which means, and I quote:
To be considered gay friendly, a manufacturer must offer domestic-partner benefits to their GLBT employees, no matter where they live or work in the US.
In short, the referenced and linked facts directly contradict your unreferenced and undocumented assertions.
Now, produce the following:
a) A clear, referenced statement that states specifically that, contrary to HRC and the above referenced sources, Mercedes-Benz does not offer domestic partner benefits
b) A clear, referenced statement that states specifically that, contrary to HRC, the above referenced sources, and a simple population analysis using the numbers referenced in your own citation, Chrysler does not and has never offered domestic partner benefits to non-union employees.
Pound your chest and scream if you must — you’ve already demonstrated that you’re not interested in real life to the degree that you’re interested in being “right” as an armchair quarterback from San Francisco, Dallas, or wherever you’re claiming to be living these days.
You claim to be interested in facts, Mr. Miller; I have provided them, in an easily-referenced and verified form.
In contrast, you seem completely unable to reference or verify your arguments, and are reduced to quoting invisible and nonexistent “friends”, whose identities you conveniently cannot verify out of concern for their “privacy” — despite your continuous insistence that failing to reveal my identity invalidates my arguments.
posted by Brian Miller on
OK ND-30, you’re the armchair acolyte of the facts, and those of us living the history you claim doesn’t exist are overwhelmed by your superior knowledge of our lives. I’m so glad we have someone like you to promote the officially published truth of the matter and note its superiority to the reality, from your internet enclave! 🙂
BTW — you know American Motors is out of business too, right?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I actually just found out last week, when I couldn’t get parts for my Gremlin. 🙂
OK ND-30, you’re the armchair acolyte of the facts, and those of us living the history you claim doesn’t exist are overwhelmed by your superior knowledge of our lives.
My official motto is, “Trust, but verify.”
Keep in mind that fact when you’re talking to me.
posted by thom on
NDT insisting upon fact-based arguments and analysis. Oh, the irony. But I’m glad for it.