Well, if domestic partner benefits were implemented soley for gay couples because they were not permitted to marry, then it does seem logical that they're not needed any more and that keeping them for same sex couples [but not for hetero couples] would be offering unequal benefits.

What this article shows us, is that allowing marriage on the state level, but not on the federal level, still maintains a discriminatory recognition of relationships.

Now that gay couples in Mass. can marry, and domestic partner benefits are removed, this means that a veteran in Mass. is going to either have to marry (and lose his career), or just lose his partners benefits. Doesn't sound like equality yet to me.

The article does say, when talking about IBM removing their benefits "Cathleen Finn, an IBM employee in Cambridge, said she hasn't heard any complaints from colleagues". So by and large, gay couples in Mass. aren't complaining, as the article goes on to insinuate, but as you left out.

Also, GLAD's job is seeking equality, so when they see that inequality still exists, as the article points out it still clearly does, but on a federal level, it is their job to speak out about it. Very typical of the right, to label complaints about inequality as a 'whine'.

While now open to all couples in Massachusetts, it is still advisable only for adults. Please grow up.

Fighting for equality is a very grown up thing to do. Nobody expects you to be able to relate. Having said that, I should point out the article does go on to state that most companies are keeping the benefits for now, they do acknowledge that inequalities still exist, NOBODY outside of equality rights groups has complained and the article does point out near the end that the whole marriage issue thing has opened the eyes of other companies to address the issue of benefits where they weren't before.

All in all, it sounds like a positive article about the distinctions and the mess that differentiating between domestic partnerships and marriages can cause, it sounds like things are being worked out and nobody is really upset.

But zeroing in on one or two lines of type from an equal rights group about inequalities that still exist and writing a negative blog about it being whining is not surprising. My recommendation for some would be to grow up.

Another thing that needs to be considered is that Mass. legislators are working to put an anti-gay amendment into their constitution. So the gay marriage battle in that state isn't really over.

The soonest this could happen, I understand, is 2006, maybe it was late 2005. Should it follow other states and succeed, then the removal of benefits now will definitely cause a disaster for equality. Really the only thing that solves this is federal recognition. It won't ever really be over until equality stretches from sea to polluted sea.

I agree, Steve, that one of the driving factors in GLAD's position is the fear that if the domestic partner benefits go away, they may be very difficult to get back if Mass. does pass a constitutional amendment.

But it doesn't sound like that many companies are getting rid of them right away. I was surprised to read that some companies offer benefits to all couples, not just same-sex couples. Pretty neat.

One thing companies could do if they get rid of the domestic partnership benefits is to offer compensation to couples who have pay taxes on them. So, for example, those employees could get a bump up in salary to cover the federal taxes they'll have to pay on their spouse's benefits. It would be cheaper for the company to do that than to pay for the actual complete benefit package, and cost does seem to be one of the driving factors.

The article also gave one example of an employer with 9000 employees, only 50 of whom get the domestic partner benefits. That's not very many people at all, so in that case, the cost savings in an organization that large is not very much.

I also agree with you, Steve, that gay marriage legalization needs to happen at the federal level before things are truly equal.

President Bush (and a few million other immature whiners):

"Allowing gay marriage will threaten the *sanctity of marriage."

Is that the world's smallest violin I hear?







* whatever the fuck that is.

An Aside:

It's futile, cruel, and insane to try to deny The Whole Enchilada to a radical lesbian.

~NEXT!