Posted on 07/08/2006 3:20:24 AM PDT by ninonitti
Memo to Boston Globe gay and lesbian Guild employees: Get married or lose your domestic partner benefits.
Globe staffers have been told that health and dental benefitsfor gay employees’ domestic partners are being discontinued. Gay couples who want to keep their benefits must marry by Jan. 1.
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.
Such concerns played a role in the policy change at the Globe, said Steve Behenna, the newspaper’s compensation and benefits director.
The Globe does not extend benefits to live-in partners of its heterosexual employees. Like many companies, it offered benefits to partners of gay employees because marriage was not an option for them. Now that gay marriage is an option in Massachusetts, Behenna said the paper could be more susceptible to claims of discrimination.Paul Holtzman, an attorney specializing in employment law at Krokidas & Bluestein, said you can expect more local companies to change their policies.
“There is a trend towards doing what the Globe did,” he said. “A number of employers have taken the position that now that same-sex marriage is an option there is no longer a need to offer domestic partner benefits.”
As companies drop domestic partner benefits, gays who work in Boston but live in another state could be left in the lurch since they can’t legally marry, said Kevin Batt, an attorney who has handled gay marriage litigation.
Domestic partner benefits will continue for Globe employees who live in states where gay marriage is not recognized, Behenna said.
Talk about the gay marriage deal backfiring. I bet the gay marriage advocates never expected to lose their "protected status" by having the MA court rule in their favor.
Knowing the Globe as I do for four decades, I suspect the Globe's desire to legitimize gay marriage is a large part of this, and the stated reason is a bit of a smokescreen.
You mean they are going to hold gay couples to the same standards as straight couples? That's DISCRIMINATION! Or oppression. Or homophobia. Or something...
You hit the nail on the head.....Another step by the Glob(e) to push their agenda and support the Mass supreme court gay marriage decision.
You may be right about the reason for the Globe doing this. However it sure makes gay couples crap or get up off the pot.
Assume a more nefarious agenda on the part of the Globe and Pinch's minions. By eliminating any other path to benefits other than "marriage", the Globe (and its owners at the New York Times) are attempting to reinforce the position that "gay marriage" is a fundamental human rights issue. Perhaps they are attempting to build momentum among corporations to lobby for gay marriage as a way to ensure more manageable health care costs - it's much easier and probably more cost effective to offer benefits only to "married" couples - a certified test for insurability - than it is for a broader category of domestic partners.
The point is, never underestimate your opponent's strategy.
Outside of their hourly personnel... that's 90% of their workforce.
I find this to be perversely funny. In fact, it's almost the definition of perversely funny.
It will be interesting if lawsuits fly due to the termination of benefits. The Gays will be arguing that they deserve benefits not afforded to straight couples "living in sin".
The Judge who created this, overruling God, is none other than
Ms. Anthony Lewis (aka Margaret Marshall), and Anthony Lewis
writes for the New York Times, which own the Boston Globe.
Damn! I thought for a minute that they were referring to the "Gayly Planet"
This could be a case of "extreme agenda meets reality." If the insurance company told the newspaper that it would not cover unmarried dependents in a state which "allows" marriage, this would be economics overruling politics.
Gee, know they just can't freely give benefits to anyone they please. Too bad.
That, plus the Globe is a financial diaster.
Talk about mean-spririted and homophobic! LOL!!
The paper is almost unreadable. I get it at work and it just oozes bias. It is a lot more comprehensive than the Herald but the writing is Pravda-level one-sided.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.