Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ms. Toad

(38,778 posts)
6. Legally, in more than half of the states, he is correct.
Sat Sep 30, 2017, 02:07 PM
Sep 2017
http://outandequal.org/2017-workplace-equality-fact-sheet/

That's why when domestic partnership benefits started vanishing immediately after Obergefell, I suggested it was way too soon to require same gender couples to marry to obtain benefits.

Company A employs spouse A and offers spousal benefits. Company B employs spouse B and either doesn't offer benefits, spouse B doesn't work enough hours to qualify, or even Company B's benefits may not be as good as Company A (different doctor pool, for example, out of pocket cap that is $500, rather than $5,000). For whatever reason, Spouse B needs benefits through her spouse. BUT - Company B is bigoted and would fire Spouse B if it knew she was gay.

Getting married requires creating a public record. Requiring the couple to marry in order for Spouse B to obtain benefits through Spouse A forces them to choose between employment for Spouse B and benefits for Spouse B.

Marriage was a huge step - but we do not have equality yet.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump Administration Says...»Reply #6