Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 0
The last notes of “Here Come the Brides” had barely faded when the financial fallout of Massachusetts's same-gender marriages hit.
Local 103 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers informed its 6,000 members that its benefit plan defines “dependent spouse” as “a person of the opposite sex.” The result: Married spouses of gay/lesbian members are ineligible for health or pension benefits.
Meanwhile, Babson College and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, one of the state's largest employers, and announced they are dropping domestic-partner benefits for Massachusetts residents. On January 1, 2005, gays/lesbians (and many straight unmarried couples) must be married in order to keep their partners' health benefits. Other major Massachusetts employers -– including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Fidelity, Gillette and EMC Corp. -– are maintaining all domestic-partner benefits.
When it comes to the tangible impact of marriage, are gays/lesbians winners or losers now that Massachusetts has legalized same-sex unions?
“Yes,” says Robert Webb, an attorney and expert in employee benefits at the Boston law firm of Nutter, McClennen and Fish, with a laugh. Some employers have reacted by tightening benefits restrictions; others have not. Many have adopted a wait-and-see attitude.
Reverberations Beyond Massachusetts
The movement to legalize gay marriage is not limited to Massachusetts. Marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples in California, Oregon, New Mexico, New York and New Jersey -- and contested in all those places. More than 200 Fortune 500 companies, including nearly three-quarters of the top 50, offer “spousal equivalent” benefits to the partners of gay/lesbian employees. Nearly all operate in the Bay State, and beyond. What happens to employees who work in Boston but live in New Hampshire? To those who work in Texas for a company headquartered in Massachusetts, or vice versa? And what about employees who receive marriage benefits in Massachusetts and are then transferred to Missouri?
No one knows. But according to 2000 census data, nearly 600,000 gay/lesbian couples live in the United States. Most will be affected by how their employers react, or fail to react, to gay marriage.
Webb says the driving force behind eliminating domestic-partner benefits will be cost, primarily that of health benefits. However, he notes another consideration: “Would eliminating domestic-partner benefits cause that company to stop attracting the types of employees [it] seeks?”
Employers React -- or Don't
According to Webb, most employers are doing one of three things. Some are “pulling in their horns, eliminating domestic-partner benefits altogether and insisting on the federal definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman.” Others have opted to maintain benefits for up to 24 months while observing national trends. The third reaction is to continue domestic-partner benefits, in many cases offering them to straight unmarried couples as well as gays/lesbians.
The last “may be the largest group, especially among large companies,” Webb says. “They realize the incremental cost of domestic-partner benefits is small, and they get a lot of bang for their buck just by offering them.”
Bob Witeck, CEO of Witeck-Combs Communications in Washington, DC, advises corporations and foundations on gay business issues -- he sides with the third camp. “Taking away something people already have is a stupid, boneheaded move,” he says. “It will be perceived as an act of unfairness no matter how nicely it's phrased. Not everyone can get married right away, and even those who can might not feel completely safe doing so. As far as saving money, it's just not that much.”
In fact, Witeck is surprised mainstream organizations aren't clamoring for gay marriage everywhere. “Business wants simplicity,” he says. “The more complex something is, the less they like it. The Chamber of Commerce should be behind this all the way, for practical reasons. It would bring clarity everywhere. Without clarity, the cost of business goes up.”
