The Legal Benefits of Marriage

Unmarried couples lose legal benefits is the headline of a story in USA Today, sent by a reader. It begins:

States that have banned gay marriage are beginning to revoke the benefits of domestic partners of public employees.

Michigan has gone farthest, prohibiting cities, universities and other public employers from offering benefits to same-sex partners. In all, 27 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as the legally sanctioned union of a man and a woman.

Our reader comments:

There's an interesting dynamic going on. Once gays asked for and got benefits for their partners, straight people asked for benefits for their live-in partners. And they frequently got them; it would have been "unfair" otherwise. In states where gay marriage has been banned by law or state constitution, courts are now ruling that neither gays nor straights can have these benefits. It's a little step toward defining marriage as worth more than domestic partnership.

Comments

[Fr. Dcn. Raphael]

Why have wives been granted benefits in the first place? Because traditionally they have been home caring for the children instead of being in the workplace.

That is why benefits are there, not so you can have a live-in "mistress" of whatever sex.

[fdr]

As a married father of 4, I worry that because of these abuses, that the benefits granted to my wife and kids by my workplace, may eventually be lost.

THAT is the answer to the question, how does "homosexual marriage" destroy the family?

[GL]

While I have no objection to spousal benefits (and take full advantage of them at my own work), most of the benefits now at issue are extremely modern. In the past, workers were paid a wage and bought (or refrained from buying -- if even available) the employer-provided benefits now at issue (apparently primarily health insurance). These employee benefits are part of the cost of hiring an employee. Were they not being provided, the employee could earn higher wages as, presumably, the employee's worth to the employer is his total cost of employment, including wages and benefits.

Perhaps the solution here is to end employer-provided benefits (e.g., health insurance), pay the employees the savings realized by the employer, and let the employee "purchase" such benefits himself through private insurers and health savings plan. But that would empower the individual and his family and not the health care bureaucracy, so I'm not holding my breath. In any event, were this approach adopted, the worker (whether a married heterosexual, a shacking up heterosexual, or a partnered homosexual) would be paid his (or her) worth to the employer and no claim of discrimination could be raised. At the same time, there would be no claim that an illicit or immoral relationship was being implicitly approved by providing benefits based on that relationship.

[fdr]

Makes sense to me

[Bill R]

I like your proposal, GL. The only drawback I can see is that employers generally can negotiate a premium charge far less than an employee could do on his own. Perhaps a compromise would be to have the employer negotiate for a company-wide plan based on a target-number of enrollees, but then let each employee decide for himself how much or how little coverage to purchase. The problem with this proposal, however, is the competition may offer to subsidize all or part of the cost the employee would otherwise pay out of pocket, and then we're back to where we started! So we may need to have the employer administer the plan, then offer each employee a lump-sum payment to be applied to the premium cost or paid directly to the employee to do with as he sees fit.

[Nick]

GL,

There is a reasonable social goal in requiring employers to pay benefits. Individuals would, theoretically, have less bargaining power against large health corporations. In a good company with a good HR department you can bring surprisingly large insurers to heel. There are trade offs.