Compensation and Benefits Article Analysis
...erstand what some employers define as domestic partnership. When talking about extending benefits to same-sex partners of employees, much of the workplace has defined domestic partnership as a social union between two individuals of the same sex who are not legally able to marry due to state or federal law (Licastro, 2004). Massachusetts, by granting same-sex couples the right to marry, has in effect created yet another minority sub-culture: that being those individuals in a same-sex relationship who do not wish to marry legally, but who still wish to share in benefits reserved for persons in a committed relationship with a long-term partner. If marriage is to be granted to same-sex couples along with the same legal protections afforded to traditional married couples, the relevance of some domestic partnership benefits policies could be at stake for many companies not only in Massachusetts, but other states considering similar allowances. Matters get even more complicated when one considers how allowing both spousal and domestic partnership benefits to same-sex couples could, in theory, actually discriminate against mixed-sex couples who do not desire a legal marriage but would like to be afforded traditional benefits. Under many domestic partnership policies, these couples do not qualify, since they could legally be granted a marriage license (Licastro, 2004). Complications in Laws and Policies Ultimately, a company’s main desire is to reward its employees with benefits that will enable them to be productive in their professional lives, while providing security and protection in their personal lives. The issue of who should be allowed to marry is not what is at stake, rather the formal definition of to whom benefits shall be extended is (Licastro, 2004). Human Resources once again has the burden of articulating the intent of partner benefits while not over-including or excluding any rightful individuals. The fact that marriage is not a federal institution confuses the debate even further. While one state, such as Massachusetts, may recognize same-sex couples as able to marry, other states may not be obligated to acknowledge such unions, and therefore employers in those states may also not be required to extend marriage benefits to such employees (Licastro, 2004). Even if they do provide benefits to all legally married couples, there are still federal differences between same-sex and mixed-sex couples. Benefits such as tax deferred long-term savings and health ...