News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



NJ companies stiff couples with civil unions

by: Pam Spaulding

Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:00:00 AM EDT


New Jersey legislators are surprised at the lack of response to the separate-but-allegedly-equal civil unions. Only 852 couples have applied for a CU license so far. Many couples are holding out for true marriage equality.

This is the reason why those people are waiting separate is not proving to be equal as businesses with federally regulated insurance/benefit plans are citing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to reject gay and lesbian couples.

Although the civil unions law gives same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities as marriage it is not recognized by a growing number of companies - all with federally regulated benefit plans.

Under the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage.  The law allows those insurers to reject same-sex couples.

Nearly one in eight couples who have had civil unions have been turned down for company benefits Goldstein said.
Among the cases that have come to Garden State Equality, said Goldstein is one involving a woman who told her employer she and her partner had a civil union and was told by the company, "We're not going to provide benefits.  We still need the word 'marriage' and you two aren't married."

Personally, I see these rejections as a good thing. Strategically speaking, "settling" for civil unions and domestic partnerships allows a few things to happen -- 1) couples who had no legal recognition before may receive some benefit from them, and 2) inevitably, because of the federal DOMA and bigots out there, CUs and DPs are going to be shown to be inferior to marriage; and 3) it will eliminate the fantasy faux position of the top-tier 2008 Dem presidential candidates who have taken the ill-defined position of supporting civil unions as a magical solution that lets them off the hook -- giving gays and lesbians a bone while clinging onto the institution of marriage.

Either you believe in equality or you don't. Cases like this in NJ, where civil rights are butting up against DOMA and institutions continue to refuse to recognize marriage equivalency on paper, will eliminate the phony sales pitch of separate but equal.

So, letting civil unions and domestic partnerships fail in these circumstances, while painful is what we need to see right now. I know that there are those of you out there that say we should strive for marriage equality without half-measures, but from where I sit, there won't be any success on this front for a long while to come. That requires changes in hearts and minds and the education of the masses that simply isn't happening as fast as the wingers can pass legislation.

The final call will be in the courts, and it will be sooner rather than later. It has to happen because fundies are going to continue on their amendment warpath regardless of these incremental advances. We will no doubt build a long list of persuasive incidents like this and that will bolster marriage equality cases that head to the Supreme Court case. The bible beaters are just as panicked about the courts not going their way as we are.

Flashback: From BlueJersey.net's ThinkEqual campaign: a discussion between two women - one married, the other in a civil union - and they compare what their unions have in common -- and the ways that "equality" can stop at the door when it comes down to real-life circumstances.

(See the other ads here.)

Related:
* Civil unions: more on less.

Pam Spaulding :: NJ companies stiff couples with civil unions
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The trouble is
We have exactly the same situation in Massachusetts. Companies that are self-insured (though they may still have their programs serviced by an outside insurance company) do not have to recognize same-sex marriages. In fact, they may be in danger of losing federal aid if they do.

The only way to force companies to give equal benefits to all employees is to overturn DOMA. That, or, as has been increasingly the case, use the leverage of the almighty dollar.

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?


Leverage
Yes, I'd like to know which companies--NJ, Mass, and elsewhere, are deciding, essentially, to pay their gay or lesbian employees less than their straight employees.  They no longer have even a fig leaf to hide behind in the states that have established a policy of (nominal) equality for same-sex couples.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

[ Parent ]
which companies
In MA, companies included in the category of Deliberate Discriminators were Cumberland Farms, the hospitals and other places of employment with Roman Catholic ties, and, as raj said below, IBEW 103.  These are only the ones most apparent at the outset.  Doubtless there are others.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


[ Parent ]
Has there been
any kind of constitutional challenge to the federal DOMA?  I don't recall if there has been and don't have the time right now to wade through Google results.

[ Parent ]
DOMA lawsuits have happened
Yes it has been challenged but never made it to the SCOTUS level.  One was here in California where a gay couple sued to be able to marry...Case was not accepted bec...hey catch 22...they weren't married in California so no grounds to sue for federal marriage rights.

The second case was in Florida.  Two lesbians married in MA sued to have their marriage recognized in Florida, but hey...catch 22...the fed judge ruled the Full Faith etc law didn't apply when it went against public policy.

I believe the general stragegy of gay civil rights organizations (Lambda Legal, NCLR, ACLU) is not to push the federal thing yet because not likely to win (see above) and it sets precedence for future cases.  More likely to pursue intra state case, like in NJ and now possible inter state recognition of legal ss relationships between states.


[ Parent ]
Marriage is a Loser
We will be far better off if we drop the word marriage and focus on achieving civil unions with the same rights, responsibilities and privileges as marriage.

uh, Holly
The whole point of the article is that civil unions (or MA marriages) will never be equal as long as the federal DOMA is in place. As long as "marriage" is culturally treated as something separate and superior to CUs (even if on paper they are the same civil entity), couples will continue to experience discrimination.

[ Parent ]
Whoa, Holly...!
Merely calling the law "The Defense of Marriage Act" (thanks, e-Hillary and Bill!) tells you how important the word marriage is.  It has been tried over and over and over again- trying to call marriage something else to prevent certain people from getting heart attacks ("Hi, I'm Bill, and this is my husband Joe.")  And big effin' surprise... not only do civil unions and domestic partnerships NOT even come close to marriage, but the same people who get the vapors at the thought of marriage for same-sex couples ALSO feel faint and need smelling salts at the thought of civil unions and domestic partnerships. 

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=

[ Parent ]
Seperation of marriage and civil unions
My husband and I have talked about this in the past.  We think that all unions should be civil unions for legal purposes and that the word "marriage" should be reserved for the joining ritual of the religion of your choice.  That way a church could refuse to marry a couple, but the legal rights and recourses would apply regardless. 

[ Parent ]
Lots of people say that, Zorya..
I have gay friends that agree.  It makes sense to me, too.

Since 40 something states have passed amendments banning same sex marriage and the Feds created DOMA and a handful of states have a version of spousal recognition that is weak, it seems highly unlikely to me that there will be any thoughtful discourse where a solution like yours would be considered. 

The conversation is never about accommodation - it is only about discrimination.  It's never about finding ways to make it work.  It's only about finding ways to get away with hate while appearing just. 


[ Parent ]
well said
"The conversation is never about accommodation - it is only about discrimination.  It's never about finding ways to make it work.  It's only about finding ways to get away with hate while appearing just. "

Well said, Patrick!  But can I edit your numbers?  There are anti-marriage equality amendments in "only" 32 states. Nice map here.  This is an important difference, since if there were 40 as you suggested, it would mean that there would probably be enough states willing to ratify a federal discriminatory amendment (38 minimum are required).  But you are about on target saying that 40 states have at least some sort of discriminatory statute.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.


[ Parent ]
Still Confusion, At This Late Date?
What on earth makes you think any church, synagogue, mosque or other religious institution can't refuse to marry a couple right now, or that anybody wants to coerce them to?

It's about applying for, and receiving- or being refused-
a marriage license in your home state. 

=>The truth usually isn't pretty. Don't blame me for telling it.<=


[ Parent ]
Yeah, I've made that argument before too
But you can bet there would be a lot of het folks none too happy about not being able to use the word marriage.

There should be some serious research into this.  I truly wonder how many straight couples, went to the JOP or Elvis' one-stop wedding shop in Vegas after a night of drinking and fornicating, would be happy with saying they were "civil unioned" instead of "married".

Oh, my, what would Britney do?!!

Besides, you go outside of the country and you'd face the same issue all over again.  Most foreign countries, like the US, recognize marriages, not civil unions.


[ Parent ]
This...
Companies that are self-insured (though they may still have their programs serviced by an outside insurance company) do not have to recognize same-sex marriages.

...is correct--the programs are governed by the federal ERISA law, not by state law--but I have not heard of this

In fact, they may be in danger of losing federal aid if they do.

Are you referring to federal contracts?  What would be the basis of the companies losing federal aid/contracts if they elected to give the equivalent of domestic partner benefits to DPs of their employees?  I've never heard of such a thing.

BTW, this denial of recognition is not only engaged in by companies.  After same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, at least one union announced that it would not recognize marriages of same-sex couples for union benefits.  I presume that meant union sponsored health care plans (there are such) and union pensions.

One more point in regards same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.  Shortly after same-sex became legal in Massachusetts, a number of companies that had been provide DP benefits announced that they would no longer provide DP benefits unless the couple was married.  The reasoning behind DP benefits to same-sex couples was that, since same-sex couples could not marry, it would be fair to provide the benefits to DPs.  Once same-sex couples could marry, that argument went away.


Losing federal aid
It is an argument that is made by some companies, when they are trying to build a case for not offering equal benefits.

ERISA is primarily a regulatory system, to ensure a minimum level of coverage, but it also provides a federal guarantee as a last resort for insolvent benefit packages. For that reason, it could be identified as a federal benefit.

The argument is that benefits that are given by private companies to gay married couples violate DOMA (if the plan is regulated by ERISA) by offering federal benefits that were intended for hetero marriages to same-sex unions. To my knowledge no company has ever been penalized for recognizing same-sex marriages in this way, but in theory I guess a company could be.

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?


[ Parent ]
I'm somewhat dubious about that argument.
I'm not particularly familiar with ERISA, aside from the regulatory aspects (and I'm not that familiar with those).  As far as I can tell, the FedGov provides the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, which acts as a backstop for pension plans.  I'm not aware of whether the FedGov also provides a backstop for medical plans.

It strikes me that all the FedGov need do under DOMA is not recognize the state marriage for pension (or medical plan) purposes.


[ Parent ]
I don't buy it either
but it is not really something that can be tested unless the federal government tries to take adverse action against a company that is under ERISA regulation for offering marriage benefits to married gay couples. That has not happened and probably would not happen. If it did, you can be sure that GLAD would be happy to represent the company (or Lambda Legal in NJ)

Basically, it is a fig leaf.

What the hell was I doing in Oaxaca in 1992, on the eve of the Zapatista revolution?


[ Parent ]
The deal is...
that companies are looking for any way they can to shave off a few bucks.  This is a convenient excuse.  I was talking to a financial planner, who happens to be gay as well, and he said that eventually everyone will have to provide for their own healthcare and retirement savings.  The companies are getting to where they aren't going to put in their part anymore.

Funny thing is, lots of straight folks don't see the danger facing them as well.  We're all going to be on the same sinking ship and it won't matter if they're married and I'm civil unioned.  We'll all be equal when we're dead.


[ Parent ]
Short-term pain for long-term gain
I have to agree with Pam on this.  It hurts and it's painful right now, esp. for those of us who REALLY need and want to insure our families, but it does show exactly how unequal "separate but equal" is. 

haven't crossed the bridge?
Maybe Holly is like John Edwards who hasn't quite crossed that bridge yet.

You know how it is: there is all kinds of anecdotal (and not so anecdotal) evidence of the dishonesty of creating separate institutions for undesirable people, yet somehow...well...hey, that's YOUR problem, not mine.  Sorry, Charlie! 

Tough shit, chew harder.

Meanwhile, let's not rebut all of the lies about tradition and sanctity and holy matrimony while Presidential candidates with a series of spouses line up to run the country. 

No one wants to regulate divorce - except maybe the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance.  I hope they get the signatures they need to make the state of Washington have to consider applying moral standards to all citizens, not only the LGBT community

http://www.wa-doma.o...



New Jersey Civil Union Watch
Lambda Legal has set up a specific "New Jersey Civil Union Watch" to monitor trespasses and violations of intend of NJ's Civil Union Law....if you live there or know someone there pass it on.  They are chronicling this sort of thing.

Call to Action
Have you or anyone you know experienced discrimination because of your civil union? If so, contact Lambda Legal?s Help Desk at 212-809-8585, toll-free at 866-542-8336 or legalhelpdesk@lambdalegal.org.


Marriage Equality Case Connecticut Supreme Court
Marriage or Civil Union.  Case out now for judges decision.
Hear the arguments on both side.  Will answer many of your questions.

www.glad.org
 

Make alot of noise. Life is short.


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox