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 do you think?

Let's get some discussion going. What do you think about some of the issues discussed here? Speak your mind and let the world know what you think. Any and all comments are welcome and will be respected, even if you completely disagree with what I've written.

Thanks,
Bruce

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.

How many homes do you have?

How many homes do you own? If you're lucky, you might answer one. In this country, there are many who aren't so lucky. We have far too many homeless and people who are living in substandard housing. Most of us are one paycheck away from losing our homes and hardly anyone is safe from the threat of foreclosure.

In the midst of all this, Senator John McCain dares to admit that he has no idea how many homes he owns. He said in a recent interview that he would have to have his staff get back to the interviewers with the answer. The true answer has since been reported to be around seven.

The man owns seven homes. No wonder he had to have someone else do the math and answer for him. Does this really sound like a person who has any idea what it's like to struggle to make a house payment, put food on the table and keep the gas tank filled so you can make it back and forth to work? No. It doesn't even sound like a person who has any idea what it's like to be one of us regular, working folks. So, how could he possibly be able to do anything for us as President?

Should we boycott the big oil companies?

In many ways, consumers are already boycotting the big oils companies without even realizing it. Evidence of this comes in plant closings by automobile manufacturers who were producing large, gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and increased sales of hybrid vehicles.

More should be done to protest these insanely high gas prices, especially in light of the nation's largest oil company once again posting record profits and calling it a fair return on their investment while most of us are having a hard time feeding our families and our gas tanks at the same time.

A skyrocketing unemployment rate, retail price increases the highest in 30 years and other distressing economic news that indicates the United States is slipping further and further into recession are, at least in part, due to out of control gas prices.

Politicians and those involved in big business whose biggest decision is what size personal jet to buy may not have to wonder how in the world they are going to afford to get back and forth to work on a daily basis and also be able to afford school clothes and supplies for their children. Common, everyday working people are being faced with these decisions, however, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for them to even survive financially.

Anyone who hasn't noticed the effect of high gas prices on their personal bottom line need only take a trip to a grocery store. Look at the prices you were paying for items 6 months or even a month ago opposed to what you're paying for them now. You will notice drastic increases in the prices of every item in the store. If you ask the store owner or manager why the prices have gone up, you will more than likely be told that the prices were raised by their suppliers. Tracing this even further, the suppliers have raised prices to cover increased transportation costs because of high priced gasoline.

The effects of the high gas prices reach us in more ways than just the grocery store. Every retailer has been forced to raise prices because of the higher transportation costs. This is an artificial and dangerous form of inflation caused by something other than demand. It has thrown our economic system into disarray which is obvious from the roller coaster stock market. It has no idea how to react to the strangeness of the current economic climate because things are simply out of whack.

Nationwide one day boycotts on gas stations have proven ineffective in the past because enough people simply will not participate and, even if they did, one day is not going to make a significant difference to get the attention of the big oil companies. Someone somewhere needs to be organizing some type of boycott of big oil that will be effective in at least sending a message that we as consumers are not simply going to lie back, shut up and take it up the gas tank anymore.

The Olympics

The Olympics are a truly wonderful thing, uniting the world in good sportsmanship and friendly competition. However, I always have to wonder if they don't wind up being exploited as a purely political spectacle wherein the competing countries try to assert their superiority and world domination.

It was part of Hitler's plan in designing his master race to develop super athletes who would dominate the Olympic games and thereby prove to the world that Germany was in a position to conquer it's enemies.

There is always political intrigue surrounding the Olympic games themselves, including where they are hosted. This year's games were certainly no exception as all eyes were on China and how they would handle opening their country to foreign influences.

Though there is undoubtedly a great deal of politics and posturing involved with the Olympics, the good far outweighs the bad. The world unites for moments of triumph and cheers together each victory. Though some countries clearly dominate certain sports, it's usually pretty equally distributed throughout all the various sports and events represented, giving each country their own unique opportunity to shine.

This year's Olympics will be remembered for many things, including the phenomenal, almost superhuman Michael Phelps, the murder of a former Gold Medalist's father on Chinese soil and the unrest between Georgia and Russia. Hopefully they will be remembered primarily as a time when the world set aside it's differences and came together as spectators for one of the most thrilling competitions of our time.

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.