karl_lembke (karl_lembke) wrote,

Unintended consequences?

This may be interesting to watch.

Now that same-sex marriage is the law in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe, among other employers, is reconsidering benefits for "domestic partners". (link)

A memo sent to the Globe’s Boston Newspaper Guild members, and obtained by the Herald, states that Massachusetts gay Guild employees can extend their benefits to their partners only if they marry.
An employee who currently covers a same-sex domestic partner as a dependent will have to marry his or her partner by Jan. 1 for the employee benefits coverage to continue at the employee rates
the memo states.

This may be an interesting way to gauge the actual demand for same-sex marriage. How many people who are currently receiving benefits as domestic partners will object to being "forced" to marry to continue receiving them?
Tags: politics
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.