If it’s of any interest, I happen to know the G.E., Merrill Lynch, and several others have made a move in the last two years to extend health benefits to the “significant others of nonmarried couples.”
I find this remarkably clever phrasing.
It’s also been my understanding that any company that wants to extend domestic partnership benefits to its gay employees applies them equally to straights, but I have no cites either for or against this. I’ll try to do some homework if I have the chance.
Of course, the proper argument is that opposite-sex couples have an option that same-sex couples don’t - they can actually get married, thus rendering their need for DP benefits from their company moot. Still, I don’t see how a company wouldn’t give an unmarried heterosexual couple the same DP option - their legal departments would do backflips to make sure no one was being discriminated against, gay or straight.
Esprix
This is not correct.
I disagree.
Okay.
I checked HR at ML and its true. SOs of both unmarried gay and straight employees are entitled to benefits if the employee so elects.
Once you enroll them you are stuck with them for a full year.
BTW. Anybody see what was said at the Emmys last night?
Here’s a cite:
http://www.hrc.org/worknet/ (Fortune 500 link)
Offer DP benefits to same sex partners only:
General Motors
Ford Motor Co.
IBM
AT&T
Boeing
Lucent Technologies
Verizon Communications
Motorola Inc.
Time Warner Inc.
Freddie Mac
Honeywell
Walt Disney
American Express Co.
AMR/American Airlines
Coca-Cola
UAL/United Airlines Inc.
Tech Data Corp.
Hartford Financial Services Co.
US West Inc.
Viacom Inc.
Gap Inc.
Northwest Airlines
Texas Instruments Inc.
John Hancock Financial Services
Unisys
St. Paul Companies
Safeco
Avnet Inc.
Anthem Insurance
NCR Corp.
Apple Computer
Estee Lauder Companies
QualComm
Knight-Ridder Newspapers Inc.
New York Times Co.
Offer DP benefits to both:
Citigroup Inc.
Bank of America Corp.
Hewlett-Packard
Compaq Computer Corp.
Fannie Mae
Merrill Lynch
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.
Chase Manhattan Bank Corp.
Chevron Corp.
Costco Wholesale
Prudential
Goldman Sachs Investment Banking
Wells Fargo & Co.
PG & E Corp.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
FleetBoston Financial
Microsoft Corp.
Xerox Corp.
J. P. Morgan & Co.
Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester NY
Nationwide Insurance Enterprise
Cisco Systems
Sun Microsystems
Pacificare Health Systems
Edison International
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Nike Inc.
Marriott International Bethesda MD
Foundation Health Systems
US Airways
Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc.
Seagate Technology Inc.
IKON Office Solutions
Mattel Inc.
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
Avon Products
Science Applications International Corp. Computer Associates International
Omnicom (Diversified Agency Services)
Nordstrom
Applied Materials
America OnLine
Medtronic Inc.
McGraw-Hill
Nextel Communications
EMC Corp.
Don’t offer DP benefits at all:
SBC Communications Inc.
Enron
Intel Inc.
Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance
Electronic Data Systems Corp.
Federated Department Stores
Monsanto Co.
The Limited Inc.
Oracle Corp.
Principal Financial Group
Continental Airlines
US Bancorp
Columbia Broadcast System (CBS)
Lincoln National
Chubb Life Insurance Co. of Ameerica
Cummins Engine Co. Inc.
General Mills
Times Mirror Co.
Barnes & Noble
Clorox Co.
Charles Schwab & Co.
To be honest, I didn’t realize that there were any companies that extended DPs to same sex partners only. I had assumed that they were already in place and then merely extended to same sex partners. It seems only right that if I ask for right to marry and be a legal couple, that I also ask for a straight’s right to not marry and be treated as a legal couple.
I saw part of the Emmy’s, but I can’t think of any remark that particularly sticks out. Which one are you refering to?
Great list.
Beakerxf:
Referring to the “year of the queer” quote, and how it was picked up by a couple of newspapers and commentators this morning.
beakerxf, thank you for setting us all straight (to coin a phrase).
Color me surprised - I would have thought that a company’s legal suits would have fits if the benefits were extended to one kind of couple and not both. But, again, straight couples have an option that gay couples don’t - they can get married. (I once had someone argue that this somehow made it easier for gay couples to get benefits when he and his fiancee, not yet married, can’t. He didn’t seem to grasp that you just don’t walk into your friendly neighborhood HR department and say, “I want benefits” - you have to prove long-term domestic partnership, and like all other benefits, companies usually have a waiting period from your date of hire. I also pointed out to him that if he wanted those benefits so badly he still had the option of running down to city hall that very day and getting his partner those benefits the first of the very next month, but he didn’t like that idea. :rolleyes:)
Esprix
See that? You gay guys don’t know how good you have it.**
Ah, but that would be entangling. You never can tell when you might want to suddenly give it up and, say, move to San Diego.
You have to prove current relationship. Regarding the long-term aspect, generally you must merely assert that you’ve not had another relationship in the past year and a half or so.
I have afeeling this problem doesn’t really have a solution, so I’m not Asking the Gay Guy (II), just complaining.
I’m currently taking a class called “Urban Social Problems” it examines various models of social structures and applies them to the problems that develop in society.
This class, btw, is at a private (religious) college so the teacher can say pretty much whatever he likes unless it pisses the administration off (like, say, teaching current evolutionary theory instead of a bare-bones “so they say” paleontology).
Last class period, he takes one of his many theological digressions and moves it into the area of the church as the defender of societal morality, and this further into the unfortunate maleability of the church’s doctrines. He uses homosexuality as an example.
“I’m not saying they shouldn’t be accepted as people - and I’m sure God loves them - but they shouldn’t be allowed to flaunt their behaviour in public. There are just some things that are clearly wrong.”
sigh The obvious solution was to have left the school four years ago when I began to note inconsistencies in the theology that I could not reconcile, despite many discussions with professors in the theology department. Well, at least it’s my senior year.
**
Y’know, IzzyR, I’ve read your posts in various threads. I’ve declined to reply because you seem to delight in being one of those stone walls that everyone butts heads against. Much better heads than mine have failed to make an impression, so I didn’t waste the time and effort.
But I kept telling myself that you weren’t just another jerk, that you weren’t being intentionally offensive, that you simply hold opinions and perspectives different from mine. Guess I was wrong about those first two points.
redtail23,
Would you care to explain what you object to about that specific post?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by IzzyR
See that? You gay guys don’t know how good you have it.
[Quote]
Meant as a winking jab or seriously? I’m not certain.
Well, I was going to respond to you privately, but you have no e-mail listed, so I’ll say it here: that was a hurtful thing to say. You have no idea what’s going on in my relationship right now, and taking pot shots like this is demeaning, rude and cruel. An apology is in order.
Right. But in the case of opposite-sex couples, they only need to provide a piece of paper that say they were at City Hall yesterday. A same-sex couple has to prove they’ve been together a certain amount of time already.
Yeah, we’ve got it so easy… :rolleyes:
Esprix
Sorry to hear about your class woes, Kyberneticist. This is why I’ll never attend classes at a religious school - runs way too contrary to my beliefs. (Although I was surprised when I once temped at a Christian college in the area that turned out to be surprisingly liberal - very gay-positive bunch.)
Esprix
I agree that in a perfect world (isn’t that set to fall into place like tomorrow or something?) the benefits would be gender blind.
But to be fair, the companies who offer DP benefits only to same sex couples are simply filling a gap, not changing the social status quo.
Actually, both. IOW, the actual words were a winking jab, but the underlying sentiment contained a serious point. Which is that some gay people, like many other minorities, may tend to underestimate their own clout and influence. As in this case, when you were taken aback to learn that in some cases gays have options available that are not available to straight people. (I was not, obviously, claiming that gays have it, on the whole, better than straight people).
It was not intended as a potshot, but to point out that you are familiar with the concept that often people would like the freedom to end a relationship, and for this reason resist marriage. For this reason, it is not valid to say that “hey, they can always get married”.
However, as it has evidently hurt your feelings, I most certainly apologize. Truth is that I have not been following your saga all that closely, and should have not have assumed that it was fair game to use. So again, my most humble apologies.
Again, assert, not prove. These kinds of things can be difficult to prove.
You’re still missing the point - the very fact that a separate institution such as domestic partnerships has to be set up only proves, as lissener put it, that there is a wide gap that needs to be filled in for the inequality that already exists. As if one company’s benefits equalled what the city, state and government provide when two people get married? Please. And even for those companies whose policies are set up solely for same-sex couples (which, IMHO, should not be the case - I think they should extend to opposite-sex couples as well, including people supporting their elderly parents), opposite-sex couples still have the option of getting married, even if only for the sake of convenience.
Sure it is - people get married for all kinds of reasons, and marriages of convenience is one of them. Same-sex couples can’t get married for any reason, period. Besides, what’s divorce for? Whether it’s DP or marriage benefits, the benefits end when the relationship ends.
Accepted. For the record, things are falling apart right now, but I’m trying to keep it off the boards as my revealing too much personal information is what’s making my life miserable in the first place. Let’s move along now.
Wrong. For the City of Philadelphia’s DP benefits, you are required to provide several pieces of evidence to prove your relationship, including proof of co-residence (mortgage or lease), proof of financial interdependence (joint accounts, utility bills in both names), etc. The burden of proof lies on the couple. Straight folks need only produce a marriage license to get all that.
And let’s not forget that DP measures are hardly equal to marriage benefits (except, thankfully, in the state of Vermont).
Esprix
Certainly.
To make light of an individual’s relationship difficulties, as you did here, is both rude and mean-spirited. I could see that quite easily, despite the fact that I haven’t followed the entire saga either.
To imply that the specific circumstances of one individual’s relationship makes some sort of valid statement about a civil rights issue is disingenuous, at the least. (At worst, it’s blatant bigotry, but I’ll not assume that applies to you.)
The fact is, many heterosexual couples get married for convenience. I did, for exactly this purpose - to get insurance benefits for my partner. We decided one Thursday, got the bloodwork and license Friday and were married Saturday. I applied for spousal insurance benefits on Monday and they were immediately effective retroactive to Saturday.
The fact is, homosexual couples DO NOT HAVE THAT OPTION. Period. End of discussion.
Snide comments don’t change the facts.
However, since you’ve apologized and Esprix has accepted that apology, I will withdraw my earlier comments.
[sarcasm]
I guess the ADL should just quit bitching about anti-semitism, huh. I mean, after all, Jews never have to pay retail, right?
[/sarcasm]
Well, except that Vermont’s DP benefits still aren’t equal to marriage benefits, in that they don’t cross state lines, they don’t entitle you to federal benefits, etc. etc. etc. They are, however, a step in the right direction.