Should Employers Provide Benefits to Same-Sex Partners?

Some of the best and most progressive companies are already offering employee benefits for same-sex partners of employees. Others are dipping their foot in the pool by providing those benefits in places where they are mandated to do so, such as Massachusetts. According to an online article on HRhero.com Excerpted from Arkansas Employment Law Letter, written by attorneys at the law firm Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., Massachusetts became the first state to legally recognize gay marriage in 2004. Same-sex couples are required by law to be treated the same as heterosexual couples in that state. However, there are many other states who do not legally recognize those marriages, so a company with employees in Massachusetts as well as other states would not be required to treat all its employees the same.

This is where the issue becomes murky because the laws are different everywhere across the country. It boils down, most of the time, to the employer's choice of whether to provide employee benefits for same-sex partners of their employees. Most forward-thinking companies have already discovered the richness and unique synergy having a diverse workforce can offer and have embraced the idea of providing the same benefits to all their employees, regardless of sexual orientation.

The major issue is fairness for all. It takes nothing away from heterosexual couples to offer their same-sex counterparts the same benefits they enjoy. As a matter of fact, it's only fair that they should receive the same benefits since they are providing the same service to the companies for which they work. To deny the domestic partner or spouse of a homosexual employee the benefits to which everyone agrees the spouse of a heterosexual employee is entitled is nothing short of discrimination.

Of course, since there isn't an overwhelming consensus on the issue, it is still up for debate and each company must decide where they stand. Those who want to attract and keep the brightest and best of employees will, no doubt, eventually see that rewarding them all equally will only sweeten the pot of a talented and enthusiastically loyal workforce.

Who someone chooses to love and spend their life with has absolutely nothing to do with what type of employee they will be. However, the respect and equality with which one is either treated or not will go a long way toward determining the quality of work they perform for their employer. The companies who are smart enough to figure this out will be the ones offering full and equal benefits for same-sex partners of their employees.

What's Happening to the First Amendment?

Anyone who's even remotely interested in the erosion of First Amendment rights in this country should take a moment to read today's AP article by Associated Press Writer P. Solomon Banda entitled Balancing free speech with protest rights.

Here's my two cents worth on a related topic...

Should protesters be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US?

Before I state what I'm sure may be an unpopular opinion, let me start by saying that I have a nephew who is a Marine and I am extremely proud of him, as I am of all our men and women serving in all branches of the armed forces. I am thankful for their sacrifices and I applaud them for their courage and bravery.

However, as a person who values my freedom of speech above all else, I have to take the stance that protesters should be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US. It is simply a matter of preserving free speech and freedom of expression, which are part of what our brave men and women are fighting for.

Whether any of us agree or disagree with the point the protesters are making is completely beside the point. We must stand beside them as American citizens and vigorously defend their right to say whatever it is they want to say and make their point in whatever way they choose to express themselves, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights or break any laws. Peaceful assembly is legally protected in this country and one of the things we should be thankful for.

This does not, however, give anyone the right to resort to violence or to overtly disrupt the operation of those recruiting offices. There are fine lines between being heard and being disruptive which have to be addressed on a case by case basis.

Anyone who supports the view that protesters should not be permitted to picket military recruiting offices should take a moment to think about that position. If we allow our freedoms to be taken away one by one, it's only a matter of time until something you hold dear is under attack. How would you like to be told that you no longer have the right to write any article that supports protesters being permitted to picket military recruiting offices? How about being told that you can't write anything that doesn't show 100% support of the current political administration?

It may sound far out or left-wing, but it's not that absurd to think that we could find ourselves living in a society where we are told what we can and cannot write. That's what freedom and speech and freedom of expression protects. If we allow one form of suppression of those rights, it's only a matter of time until other forms of suppression show themselves. I, for one, value my freedom to express myself, right or wrong, popular or unpopular, too much to see anyone else lose those rights and that freedom.

Is truth absolute or conditional?

That depends. Your definition of truth determines whether it is absolute or conditional. Online reference Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) gives 12 different definitions of the word truth, which leaves a lot of room for gray areas as far as a definitive answer goes.

Anything that is so hard to define would logically be conditional, depending on a person's perception of what it even means. One definition given by Dictionary.com is "an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude." Obvious to whom? Accepted by whom? If it's not obvious to 100% of the population and not accepted by 100% of the population, does that mean it can't be the truth? That definition in and of itself imposes a conditional quality on truth.

Another definition given in the same reference is "agreement with a standard or original." Who determines the standard by which we judge whatever is in question? Did everyone agree on that standard or just the majority? And what about those things to which the original is long gone and cannot be qualified or quantified? This definition is particularly troubling for those who would say that truth is absolute because it implies that everything true requires proof. Some things that the majority of people hold to be true can clearly not be proven in any way, shape or form. Not to open up a religious debate, but what about the existence of God? What standard or original can be offered to determine the truth of His existence? People either believe or disbelieve in the truth of the existence of God by faith which cannot be scientifically measured or proven, therefore making it conditional.

Yet another definition of truth is "conformity with fact or reality." This leaves room for the gray areas of things that do not conform, fall outside the norm or "defy reality." If things that are outside the norm and do not correlate to our shared concept of reality cannot be considered truth, then that creates a whole other set of conditions on it. Who decides what is normal and conforms? In the past the definition of normal was what fell within the majority. That leaves the minority unaccounted for, yet that minority still exists.

By definition, truth is conditional. If it weren't we wouldn't ever have to apply common qualifying terms like "absolute truth" because that would be the only kind. Those who argue that truth is absolute, therefore, are actually making just the opposite argument without even knowing it. And that's the honest truth.

Freedom of speech does not mean not getting offended

Freedom of speech almost certainly means that someone somewhere at sometime will be offended. This is because we are free to express any opinion, however contradictory to the norm it may be. When people discuss views, opinions and beliefs openly and freely, there is sure to be disagreement and there is always the risk of offending someone.

The offended party, fortunately, has the right to express his or her moral outrage and put forth their own opinion. That is the beauty of freedom of speech and why it must be vigorously defended. If we didn't have it, we would be forced to conform to one way of thinking approved and endorsed by one particular group, usually the government.

The risk of being offended is a small price to pay for such a basic and essential freedom. There are messages we see every day that we don't necessarily agree with, but we must stand up for the individual rights of others to put forth even those, or we run the risk of losing our right to express our own thoughts.

Think for a moment about a time when you have been most outraged about a form of expression. What did you do? Odds are, you expressed your indignation and spoke about why you disagreed with the message. You may have even thought to yourself that the party who expressed the offending message shouldn't have had the right to put it forth in the first place. If you stop to think logically about that, it would mean that you would likewise not have the right to express your opinion on the matter.

Free and open discourse is the only way that civilized, rational people can resolve problems and issues that affect everyone. It is because of contradictory ideas being expressed in the marketplace of ideas that social change ever has the opportunity to occur. When two opposing ideas are expressed, it opens up a forum or debate where others are free to give their input, often resulting in a clear resolution of the issue or even compromise. Someone is likely to propose an idea that appeals to both schools of thought and gives them some common ground on which they can agree.

Without our freedom of speech intact we may have a life of less conflict and find ourselves offended less often, but we would lose our ability to think and reason on our own. Plus, we would have to rely on someone or some group to decided what messages are appropriate and approved. There is no one in the world qualified to make those decisions for us. What we think, feel and believe must not be dictated by a single individual or group, but rather determined by our ability to sift through all the conflicting messages available and find those which which we agree and disagree.

Communist countries without freedom of speech and without a free press rely on their governments to distribute information. They are told what the government feels they need to know and are not allowed to express any opinions that do not totally agree with and support the ruling party. They may live their lives without being offended, but they are also living in the dark, their minds dulled by ignorance and controlled by a handful of people who decide what's best for them.

I would much rather stand the risk of being offended by what you have to say than to give up my right to either agree or disagree and have a frank, open discussion with you about it. Since, fortunately, we are still free to express ourselves, I was free to write this blog post. If you have been offended in any way or if you disagree, you are free to make that known by expressing yourself through freedom of speech.