• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mass. Companies Refuse To Recognize Gay Marriages

aidanjm

Lifer

Massachusetts Companies Refuse To Recognize Gay Marriages
December 18, 2004

(Boston, Massachusetts) Even though same-sex marriage is legal in the state some of the biggest employers in Massachusetts are refusing to provide benefits to the spouses and children of those workers who have wed.

General Dynamics, FedEx, and NStar are among a major corporations in the state that say they are not bound to provide the benefits. The companies all say that because their health plans are federally regulated they are complying with the federal Defense of Marriage Act which bars same-sex unions.

Each of the companies has what is known as self-insured health plans. These are benefits plans in which the employer, not an insurer, collects the premiums and pays the medical and hospital bills of its workers. Self insured plans fall under federal regulations.

Mercer Human Resource Consulting says that about 66 percent of large US companies have self-insured plans.

A FedEx worker in Massachusetts contacted the Boston Globe newspaper after she was notified by her employer that her application to have her wife covered under the company's insurance plan was rejected.

"FedEx is not discriminating against you because of your sexual orientation,?? FedEd said in its letter of rejection to the worker. ??Rather, the company is following the terms and conditions of its benefit plans?? under federal law.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group which won the landmark ruling that allows same-sex couples to wed in the state denounced the move.

Staff attorney Michele Granda said that all married couples, including same-sex couples, should be treated equally under self-insured health plans.

Granda said that the issue is likely to wind up in court.

??There are some good legal reasons why we might be able to challenge?? denial of benefits, she told The Globe.

Earlier this month companies that had provided benefits to same-sex partners said they were canceling those plans. The companies, which included IBM, Raytheon, Northeastern University and Boston Medical Center said that only married same-sex couples would be eligible.

The companies said they extended the benefits because gay couples could not marry, but now that same-sex marriage is legal in state there was no need to offer the benefits to unmarried gays. Unmarried heterosexual couples are also not eligible.
 
^^ BUMP ^^

Welcome to the new christain state. the undesirables are no longer welcome. Reminds me of the UCC tv Invitation to "ALL" people to attend their church. Well it dont remind me of that but the fact that your country thought it inapropriate and distatestfull and contraversial. since when is it a contreversy that christ excepted everyone. Hrmmm.. I dont remember him ever spending (+) moments with the desirable people. I think of his crowd i think of beggers sick tramps etc etc etc. persecuted slaves. not quite corporate america.
 
Figures.

What happened to all of those "States' Rights" Rightwingers, anyway?

Musta got lost in the contradiction...
 
Originally posted by: mossad
^^ BUMP ^^
Welcome to the new christain state.

Large corporations and insurance companies have always used whatever excuse available to screw people. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, you pea-brained conspiracy freak.
 
Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Originally posted by: mossad
^^ BUMP ^^
Welcome to the new christain state.

Large corporations and insurance companies have always used whatever excuse available to screw people. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, you pea-brained conspiracy freak.

i agree. "companies have lawyers working hard on their side"...... i don't think this was about someone's moral agenda, but rather, saving some scratch

 
Originally posted by: gutharius
REPOST!

Riprorian already brought this up and as customary his/her opinion was completely dismissed as baseless.

His post was on companies that actually do recognize gay marriages. Some of those companies were moving to drop their domestic partnership schemes now that same-sex couples can legally marry in Massachusetts. (The domestic partnership schemes were originally introduced for same-sex couples, because they couldn't marry).
 
Originally posted by: Tabb
I'll be using DHL and UPS much more often now 🙂

Looks like Fedex is getting ALL of my shipping business and I guess I have to lay off IBM....
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Tabb
I'll be using DHL and UPS much more often now 🙂

Looks like Fedex is getting ALL of my shipping business and I guess I have to lay off IBM....

I'm surprised you would bother changing your spending habits over this. It must be an issue close to your heart. 🙂

 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Tabb
I'll be using DHL and UPS much more often now 🙂

Looks like Fedex is getting ALL of my shipping business and I guess I have to lay off IBM....

I'm surprised you would bother changing your spending habits over this. It must be an issue close to your heart. 🙂

only directed at me or at Tabb also....personally I don't give a rats ass but think it is for the best, why should companies provide domestic partner benefits? makes no sense.
 
If they remove the benifits from both parties I don't care. Now, as for them discriminating agiasnt gays then well, they wont get my buissness. Its a good idea to promote marriage, in general its good for the state. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Tabb
I'll be using DHL and UPS much more often now 🙂

Looks like Fedex is getting ALL of my shipping business and I guess I have to lay off IBM....

I'm surprised you would bother changing your spending habits over this. It must be an issue close to your heart. 🙂

only directed at me or at Tabb also....personally I don't give a rats ass but think it is for the best, why should companies provide domestic partner benefits? makes no sense.

"Domestic partners"? Aren't they spouses in Massachusetts, or did I miss something. In other words, in Massachusetts, gay people are just as married as straight people. So these corps that you seem to get all hot over are in fact discriminating against certain MARRIED couples just because (presumably) they don't like their sexual orientation. Which is, feel free to write this down, illegal...you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation in ANY state as far as I know, and in Mass, gay people are married just like straight people.

I don't understand why gay married couples should be treated differently than straight married couples. The whole benefits thing is based off of marriage, and brining sexual orientation into the picture sounds a hell of a lot like discrimination to me.
 
Tabb said:
If they remove the benifits from both parties I don't care. Now, as for them discriminating agiasnt gays then well, they wont get my buissness. Its a good idea to promote marriage, in general its good for the state.

They are not discriminating. Businesses are forever looking for ways to cut cost.
 
Originally posted by: wiin
Tabb said:
If they remove the benifits from both parties I don't care. Now, as for them discriminating agiasnt gays then well, they wont get my buissness. Its a good idea to promote marriage, in general its good for the state.

They are not discriminating. Businesses are forever looking for ways to cut cost.

Explain to me how its not discrimination.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
"Domestic partners"? Aren't they spouses in Massachusetts, or did I miss something. In other words, in Massachusetts, gay people are just as married as straight people. So these corps that you seem to get all hot over are in fact discriminating against certain MARRIED couples just because (presumably) they don't like their sexual orientation. Which is, feel free to write this down, illegal...you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation in ANY state as far as I know, and in Mass, gay people are married just like straight people.

I don't understand why gay married couples should be treated differently than straight married couples. The whole benefits thing is based off of marriage, and brining sexual orientation into the picture sounds a hell of a lot like discrimination to me.

The companies are global organizations and abiding by FEDERAL law....personally I would love it if they pulled out of Mass altogether, watching this liberal haven burn would be a hoot...heck people are already migrating out of this overpriced, over taxed dump of a state in the droves.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Figures.

What happened to all of those "States' Rights" Rightwingers, anyway?

Musta got lost in the contradiction...
hehe:thumbsup:

Ofcourse what you fail to understand is that the state's rights "won" in a sense. The state(courts) decided to do something and the state is now facing the consequences of that decision. A better question for you Jhhnn - shouldn't you be livid that a state is trying to force something to break/disregard your Federal regulations? You central gov't folks seem to want everything to come from Washington - not the other way around - right?😉
Oh wait...that's right - the socialists don't like it when we point these things out to them... sorry...

CsG
 
OH, I understand it, CsG, I'm just amused by some of the twists and turns of modern politics, and just how quickly States' Rights folks switch horses when things aren't going their way.

"States' Rights!" was the rallying cry for Racism, then Sexism, and finally, I suppose, "Genderism", for lack of a better term. Except when it goes the other way, then those same folks are all about federal law. Your comments are no different, just more of the usual self-righteous posturing that borders on self-caricature... not that you'd notice.
 

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Until this whole gay equality is resolved this is how some companies deal wih the new problem. When Congress will pass a law or amendment regulating that aspect of our employment policy, then we should start worrying about all the inequalities that still exist concerning the gay policy.:disgust:
 
Back
Top