Hi, Cleveland Plain Dealer today front page GM and Ford to now give benefits to Same Sex Couples.

Now, Here is my question, they are NOT doing the same for hetrosexual couples.......FAIR? Discriminatory?

Thoughts please.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 09, 2000

Answers

Can't say for sure, but seems that they are doing this for same sex couples who are 'life-partners.'

Heterosexual couples can enjoy the same benefits if they get married. Sorry, but that is the requirement of the times; a requirement that TPTB do not see as necessary to same-sex couples.

Fair? Discriminatory?

-- Watch and see (choices@fair.discriminatory), June 09, 2000.

The problem I have with this is that if it is good for one, why not the other? Some hetero couples choose life-time commitments as well, dont want to bother for whatever reasons to marry.

So now because they arent allowed to marry, then its ok to give them only benefits? That is pure BS to me. While otoh pretty much forcing the hand of heterosexuals to be married to recieve.

My point again is What is good for one, is good for the other. Fair is only Fair. Who is to say if such unions were legal, they would tie the knot?

We dont know, do we? still shaking head in disbelief.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 09, 2000.

The problem I have with this is that if it is good for one, why not the other? Some hetero couples choose life-time commitments as well, dont want to bother for whatever reasons to marry.

I understand that, but then again, that is a choice they make, and as a result they do not have access to the benefits.

So now because they arent allowed to marry, then its ok to give them [ed. same-sex] only benefits? That is pure BS to me. While otoh pretty much forcing the hand of heterosexuals to be married to recieve.

Are we sure they [heteros] do not have access to the benefits? What about common-law marriages? Is that still in effect in Michigan? If so, then that is another 'benefit' denied same-sex unions.

My point again is What is good for one, is good for the other. Fair is only Fair. Who is to say if such unions were legal, they would tie the knot? We dont know, do we? still shaking head in disbelief. -- consumer

I understand what you are saying, and while not judging that as right or wrong, I know that it is cheaper to get insurance as a single person versus a married couple. I pay 8.93 for medical insurance, that is bi-weekly. A person with a marriage partner would pay 70.00 for the same coverage. Ain't fair is it? [A married couple that I work with found this out and switched to individual coverage.]

Considering that we do not know if these same benefits are being extended to unmarried heteros, or if the same-sex couples have to pay the same prices as married couples, it is hard to say whether this is fair or not.

I am glad to see that the three large companies are acknowledging the fact that some of their employees are, shall we say, 'living alternate lifestyles.'

Before we get the religion viewpoint, remember that same-sex unions are wrong just as unmarried unions are wrong.

Equality is for everyone, but it doesn't come to everyone at the same time. Or, equality isn't equally dispersed, yet...

-- Watch and see (choices@fair.discriminatory), June 09, 2000.

Simple answer. Just make it legal for gays and lesbians to marry.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingignthroughthejunglewithouta.net), June 09, 2000.

I agree consumer, this is unbelievable that they can get away with this, and totally discriminatory. They are likely to get a class action lawsuit from the heteros who choose not to marry, and I doubt they will get away with it. Can't help but think there is a much bigger agenda here than simply getting a few more gay employees to join their work force. This is bullshit, not the right way to go about getting the laws changed.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 09, 2000.

Hawk,

...this is unbelievable that they can get away with this, and totally discriminatory.... Who is 'they' that are getting away with this? The companies made this decision, not the unions, and not the workers.

They are likely to get a class action lawsuit from the heteros who choose not to marry, and I doubt they will get away with it. Again, that is a choice that the heteros make themselves, and not one that is forced on them by society, religion, or law.

Can't help but think there is a much bigger agenda here than simply getting a few more gay employees to join their work force. This is bullshit, not the right way to go about getting the laws changed. -- Hawk

Possibly there is an unknown agenda. But I see no attempt here to change law. Just three large companies that have made the decision to extend benefits to workers and their same-sex life-partners.

It would be interesting to find out if perhaps the workers and their 'mates' are required to sign an agreement by which any separation of the two would automatically null the benefit package.

As I am sure someone will point out, same-sex partners do change partners on occasion. But, so do hetero couples.

Is there a resource where we could access the new policy to see just how it is implemented? Perhaps there is a requirement that they must be together for a certain length of time before they can access the benefits? Say, five or ten years?

Not enough info to really make a definitive judgement call here.

-- watch and see (choices@fair.discriminatory), June 09, 2000.

The article ran today in THE CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, not sure of where to find it. I'll go home later and copy it if you wish.

BTW, Ohio has quit recognizing common-law marriage since around I want to say the beginning of 1990 perhaps 1991. But it is NO longer recognized.

I'll try to take a look see and if i find it someone can post a linky for me? thanks.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 09, 2000.

http://dailynews.netscape.com/news/TopStories/06_09_2000.ronsz0819-sto ry-bcnewssummary.html

Automakers Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Partners

DETROIT (Reuters) - Detroit's traditional Big 3 automakers, joining more than 90 other large companies, said Thursday they will offer health care coverage to same-sex domestic partners for all of their U.S. employees. The decision by General Motors (GM.N), Ford Motor (F.N) and DaimlerChrysler (DCX.N)(DCXGn.DE) covers about 466,300 hourly and salaried workers, although only about 1 percent are expected to ask for the new benefits.

Here is one link, but that is all it says... still looking...

by the way, it appears that it is nationally, and not just Michigan. So the common-law marriage bit i guess does not apply. I believe Ohio is not alone in their view of common-law marriage. i think Nevada and Florida are of the same opinion, but I have no data to back that up with...

-- watch and see (choices@fair.discriminatory), June 09, 2000.

consumer, this was a headline story on the CNN site last night, but now it seems to have disappeared. They probably prefer only to make the gays aware of this, not the entire public.

watch and see,

"Who is 'they' that are getting away with this? The companies made this decision, not the unions, and not the workers."

That's who I was talking about, the companies of course!

They obviously prefer gays because they won't have to pay maternity leave and medical expenses for women who have children.

If these companies want to be able to give benefits to gays, then they need to work on changing the laws, they can't just discriminate in order to get around it. I happen to believe marriage is a flawed institution, and if I were working for these companies and they did not give benefits to my female partner, but did to male partners, I would sue their pants off. It's total bullshit.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 09, 2000.

Hawk, I missed the CNN one, but I swear I've searched all over the Cleveland Plain Dealer site, and Can NOT find it....

weird, eh? I'll leave here in a few moments, go home, get article and bring back and type it out. Nothing to do at work here today, we are slow, as folks have SLOWED down buying homes and auto's or at least placing the business with our agency.

But, seems to be the norm around for the insurance agents....slowwwww.

BRB in about an hour.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 09, 2000.

http://netscape.digitalcity.com/detroit/detroit_issues/main.dci?page=s amesex

This link has a bit of a story about it, and some 'reviews' from anonymous people. Kinda funny, actually....

-- watch and see (choices@fair.discriminatory), June 09, 2000.

here ya go!

http://www.freep.com/money/business/pact9_20000609.htm

[snip]

...The UAW and the auto companies started to discuss the extended coverage during labor talks last fall, although the UAW and some at the auto companies had been discussing it for at least a couple years.

[snip]

The automakers will require employees to attest that they have shared a committed relationship with their partner for at least six months.

[snip]

And that concerns the Archdiocese of Detroit.

"We think that traditional values of marriage and family should be upheld and not redefined by major corporations," said Ned McGrath, a spokesman for Cardinal Adam Maida.

He said it was presumptuous for the companies to move ahead without more public dialog. "It appears to discriminate against employees who don't condone this lifestyle," McGrath said.

[end snips]

That last one is hilarious! Where has that idiot been that he missed all the 'public dialogue' and why is 'public dialogue' necessary in private industry descisions? LOL

But, they do require a testament that the relationship is long term, ifonly for six months. I wonder if there is a null feature if the relationship ends. This article doesn't say...

-- watch and see (choices@fair.discriminatory), June 09, 2000.

Hawk,

In reference to your comment of 'extending to male partners but not female' [to paraphrase] I couldn't agree more!

It should include them as well, with the same requirement that they attest to the realtionship as being six months or more old.

Yes, it does allow for a lawsuit in that respect. Wonder if Al-d would sue or not? tee hee....

-- watch and see (choices@fair.discriminatory), June 09, 2000.

Big 3 Car Makers Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Partners Friday, June 9, 2000 By Justin Hyde DETROIT  The three biggest American automakers are banking on health care benefits for the partners of gay employees as a low-cost way to lure new workers in a tight labor market.

Frances M. Roberts/Newsmakers File photo: Gay and lesbian couples hold commitment ceremonies in New York City

The announcement Thursday from General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and the Chrysler division of DaimlerChrysler AG could signal that such benefits will become standard in corporate America.

"This is really a landmark," said Kim Mills, education director with the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington that tracks company benefit programs. "We've never really seen an industry get together as a group and say, 'We're going to institute these benefits.'"

The automakers have 465,000 hourly and salaried workers in the United States.

The companies said they decided to extend health benefits to employees' same-sex domestic partners after agreeing to study the issue as part of new contracts reached last fall with the United Auto Workers.

Starting Aug. 1, employees can apply for medical, dental and prescription benefits for their same-sex partners. The programs do not cover current retirees, but workers and their partners who receive the benefits will keep them after the workers retire.

David Murphy, Ford vice president of human resources, said the No. 2 automaker expects only about 1 percent of its 159,000 blue- and white- collar U.S. employees to take advantage of the benefits, adding less than $5 million to Ford's annual $2.4 billion employee health care bill.

"The benefit is saying to employees and future employees, 'Look, we are a diverse company and we do recognize not only race and gender but sexual orientation,'" Murphy said. "When we're in the labor market recruiting, we're sending a signal about how inclusive the Ford Motor Co. is."

Mills said about 3,400 companies, including 93 Fortune 500 companies, now offer benefits to same-sex domestic partners. She said the number of companies offering such benefits had grown sharply since the early 1990s.

"One factor is certainly the tight labor market," Mills said. "There's also the rise of openly gay employees within society generally and in the workplace, sitting down with managers and saying this isn't fair and managers recognizing it's an inequitable system."

A San Francisco city ordinance requiring that companies doing business with the city offer such benefits has led about 2,000 companies to adopt them, Mills said.

At GM, the benefits will be offered to 152,000 hourly employees and 54,000 salaried employees. Chrysler will offer the benefits to 71,200 hourly workers and 29,000 salaried workers; other corporate divisions of DaimlerChrysler with U.S. employees, such as Mercedes-Benz and Freightliner, will not offer the benefits.

Workers at Visteon Corp., the parts division that's being spun off of Ford, will be eligible for the domestic-partner benefits. GM's former parts division, Delphi Automotive Systems, said it was still studying whether to offer the benefits.

Murphy said Ford considered whether the move would create a backlash from employees or customers. The Southern Baptist Convention urged its members in June 1997 to boycott Walt Disney theme parks in part because the company offered same-sex domestic partner benefits.

"We decided the business case for moving ahead was a strong one," Murphy said.

) 2000, News Digital Media, Inc. d/b/a Fox News Online All rights reserved. Fox News is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox Film Corp. Data from Thomson Financial Interactive is subject to the following Privacy Statement

) 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ) 2000 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved

Hope this is not a double, but it is almost similar to Plain Dealer article.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 09, 2000.

Oh shit, I sure hope I dont get sued over posting this....!!!!

Oh well, yeah it says 6 months in Cleve PD as well, again I ask, how do they KNOW if they are still together, unless one gets mad and tells? :-)

The Auto industry is Not the only ones allowing this, according to article in Cleve PD, Lotus, Microsoft, Walt Disney and IBM already offer this. As Do: United Airlines, and US Airways.

According to PD article, Industry sources predicted that major foreign car makers with operations in US would soon follow.

David Murphy, VP of human resources at Ford said the new benefits was saying to perspective employees "Look we are a diverse company and we do recognize not only race and gender, but sexual orientation." He said Ford was sending a recruiting signal to the labor force. (end quote)

BS AGAIN, sexual orientation has what to do with working? Both ways then..... It appears to me Major companies are doing the push to legalize gay marriages.

Those who know me, know I am not homophobic, I just think EQUALITY in this matter, whats good for the gay should be good for da strait.

PERIOD.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 09, 2000.

What's the number one health care expense for heterosexual couples?

Pregnancy. Pre-natal, delivery, follow up and pediatrics for the child.

Same sex couples can't make a baby.

-- Swampthing (in@the.swamp), June 09, 2000.

just another SIGN of the times. sinking--sinking--sinking sand.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), June 09, 2000.

Swamp, you are not quite right there. Same-sex couples ARE having surrogate mothers carry babies for them with the sperm of one of the males in the couple. Also, they are adopting children quite a bit nowadays. This will be the next "family coverage" issue, you just watch and see!!!

-- We All Pay (Where2@now.com), June 09, 2000.

Consumer:

This strikes me as similar to the discussion[s] we had on the Vermont Law thread. One gripe same-sex couples had in Vermont, which led to the Vermont Law was the insurance deal. It almost seems like the firms concerned are moving ahead of anticipated laws and suggesting that insurance can be obtained at THEIR places of employment regardless of a law being passed that legitimates their union. This is not uncommon practice in forward-thinking firms. I once worked for the Manager of Operations Research at an oil company. He actively recruited talented minority groups as soon as he took the job. His logic was that some day he would be REQUIRED to have African-American, Asian, Jewish, female, etc. folks in his department, and he wanted to ensure he got the cream of the crop. He was quite successful in that endeavor, save the Japanese guy who turned out to have a gambling problem. Fortunately, he had a Korean guy as backup. [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 09, 2000.

Can you say "marriage penalty" in tax laws?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 09, 2000.

Anita: I just LOVE your tales of reality...LOL about Japanese guy w/gambling problem.

You also gave up some good 'food 4 thought' regarding wanting cream of the crop. It sure does look thata way.

Still all in all, I still think it is only fair that heteros get same options for benefits.

I believe one of the articles states as such 'looking for the cream' although not worded that way.

Thanks again for the laugh.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 09, 2000.

Oh, this ought to be good.

Because there's no way they can exclude female/male partnerships without being faced with big fat lawsuits.

So how is 'life partner' defined? Cannot a man and his mom living together be so defined? A couple sisters? What about my college buddy just rooming with me? Or does GM mandate that sex must be involved and proven before its employees qualify?

So what if my cousin and I only live together once a month, but 'our jobs' require us to live in other residences the rest of the time? We still consider our relationship a close and personal one, and by God, we deserve this from this corporation.

Wonder what the shareholders think?

-- Scarecrow (Somewhere@over.rainbow), June 10, 2000.

Scarecrow, you have said it well. Swampthing, what would you think is the most expensive healthcare issue for gay men? Can you say HMO?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 10, 2000.

Scarecrow,

Here is a quote from one of the articles above: The automakers will require employees to attest that they have shared a committed relationship with their partner for at least six months.

do you think you and Rational1 will go for it?

Also, as for the son/mother you mentioned, it would be possible for them to share health benefits if the son is not married. This is because his immediate family member would be his mom. If the mother was the employee, and the son was not married, same thing.

-- watch and see (choices@fair.discriminatory), June 10, 2000.

My cursory thought is that it should not be the sex, or even duration of the couple's relationship to determine benefits. Family benefits were added for those employees who have a commitment to another adult and any children involved. Step kids and non-custodial kids are covered by most policies. There is a committment involved to these children and between their parents.

Now, I'm quite sure all of the non-married committed partners will say that they don't need a piece of paper to be committed. As such, they should recieve benefits as if they are married.

How would this be assessed if there is no threshold (legal ceremony) to determine whether this other person is a life partner, or just another one passing through?

All of these benefits should be given to families who have made a legal committment to each other. Otherwise, no go.

I can't speak for anyone but myself but I can see in my own life and other's as well that moving between partners (living or married) is commonplace here in the U.S. For goodness sake, should insurance companies be able to keep up with the live in status of girlfriends, overnighters, transients, mother's in law, and or spouses for today's typical (whatever that is) lifestyles? Not.

It's the legal status of marriage that delineates who gets what. Would we recommend some sort of committment questionnaire to determine the real committment and type of relationship between partners? How can anything be verified? (This includes same sex relationships.)

If people are so committed and want all the advantages of marriage, what is the problem? (This doesn't apply to same sex.) I can understand a certain reluctance for some people about getting married, but get over it if you want your significant other to have insurance. Geez.

Possibly, this is the reason that this change apparently only effects same sax partners. Dunno.

At this point, insurance is available to any single people who can qualify, and they can either get married (if possible), or pay for the damn insurance.

IF same sex marriage becomes a reality, then the insurance industry need not make a change. The legal spouse would be covered.

I'm not saying I agree or not with same sex marriages. It's is simply an observation.

And that's MHO!!

-- keep the faith (booann77@hotmail.com), June 10, 2000.

"At this point, insurance is available to any single people who can qualify, and they can either get married (if possible), or pay for the damn insurance."

Will they pay for the wedding?

What if I prefer to have a series of partnerships, each lasting several years, without ever getting married? I don't think it is right to get married unless you are prepared to stay married "until death do us part." Can they legally force someone to get married to receive the same benefits? I don't think so!

This is going to turn into a fiasco. Any employee who has had a girlfriend or roommate for over 6 months is going to sue them, and they'll end up having to give extra benefits to 90% of their employees.

There must be some bigger agenda for these companies to try to do something this ridiculous. Perhaps the Insurance companies have convinced the Big 3 to get revenge on the government for passing legislation allowing insurance companies to be sued. This will overflow the courts and perhaps force the government to allow same sex marriages.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 10, 2000.

Hawk, we all know that it is a numbers game. ANY special interest group that can show strength in numbers will always get the attention of politicians and consumer product manufacturers. Next, the chicken hawks and small eyes of the world will start campaigning for equal rights as well. The magic question here is who will pay for this shit? You all know the answer to that one do you not? Once again the middle class will be bent over to pick-up the tab. Enjoy!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 10, 2000.

"So how is 'life partner' defined? Cannot a man and his mom living together be so defined? A couple sisters? What about my college buddy just rooming with me? Or does GM mandate that sex must be involved and proven before its employees qualify?"

I work for a company that offers domestic partnership benefits. We require proof of a committed relationship of more than two years. This proof can be substantiated by three of more of the following; shared ownership of property, shared accounts (i.e., joint checking account), legal documents such as power of attorney and wills, and sworn affidavits. Most companies that offer such benefits have similar criteria.

Now Scarecrow, if you want to open a joint checking account with your roommate, write him into your will, give him power of attorney and publicly declare him your gay lifepartner in order to share health benefits you are welcome to it. While I find it doubtful that most people would be willing to go to such extremes, I suppose it could indeed happen, just the same as straight people who get married for immigration purposes.

-- Nerd Rustler (nerdrustler@notanadventure.justa.job), June 10, 2000.

Nerdrustler, why would the lifepartner you mention have to be gay? Is the sex act tied into your corporate benefit policy? Just curious.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 10, 2000.

Nerd Rustler,

If you try to pretend that your college "buddy" rooming with you is your "life partner" then you will have to prove that you are also "butt-buddies". We will send a company representative to your house to take a picture of you putting your dick in his butt, which will be kept in our files for evidence. Once every year we will need to repeat this in order to verify that you and your partner are still seriously in love.

-- General Motors CEO (fudge.packers@qualify.for.benefits), June 10, 2000.

Hawk,

I can certainly understand anyone's choice not to get married for whatever reason. My point is when one of the partners gets sick, it becomes a matter of priorities whether the single status is more important than the health of the other. (If that's the case then there probably isn't enough committment even if they share a bank account, which, in my opinion, is not a statement of real committment.)

I uphold anyone's right to make choices of any kind. They must live with the consequences (unless the choice is an unwanted pregnancy and then they don't have to live with the consequences). Hmmm...

And regarding a wedding? Marriage is not a wedding. Licenses can be had for around $100 I imagine and if you know a notary, they will perform the legal service for a nominal charge. Again, it's a matter of priorities, which normally do not surface unless challenged; in this case the need for health insurance.

Thanks for your posts to this forum... you are always thought provoking... best to you...

-- keep the faith (booann77@hotmail.com), June 11, 2000.

Interesting thoughts presented on this thread. Regarding the firm that has benefits for couples who share checking accounts, property titles, etc., heterosexual couples in some states are considered legally married if they have lived together for 6 years, etc. ONLY if they do something like this. Texas is one of those states that still maintains these common-law characteristics. Other states have a legal union registry, where cohabiting people who consider their relationship longterm can register to obtain family insurance benefits, etc. Some states restrict these registries to same-sex couples. You can obtain more information at the Alternatives to Marriage Project site.

Maintaining a single status allows [particularly older] couples to maintain benefits that discontinue on remarriage. These benefits may be available from a previous marriage. Social security, for instance, allows a widow/widower to continue receiving benefits under a spouse's SS. This applies to folks who were married 10 years to a previous partner and then divorced, as well. Tax penalties and social security penalties also exist for some couples if they marry. In addition, marriage introduces legal responsibility for debts of the other, and changes in inheritance. So there are several good reasons for heterosexual couples to weigh how marriage affects their lives legally and financially outside of the insurance issue.

Outside of the Vermont law, many of the legal problems don't exist for same-sex couples who simply register if their state or county has this registry. OTOH, some same-sex couples WANT those legal ties. So, it gets tricky based on which state you live and how that state interprets your relationship based on your claims to be long-term mates. You might get a little break on insurance and find yourself losing benefits in other areas. As a co-habiting heterosexual, it's not something I'd want to chance.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 11, 2000.

Ra,

"Once again the middle class will be bent over to pick-up the tab."

You said a mouthfull there chief,bout sums it up.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), June 11, 2000.

Capn:

I'm fixing to 'bend' how bout you? :-)

When done, we can leg restle?

Ra, you are 'next' and BTW, VERY well put.

------sumer @BOHICA

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 14, 2000.