…you are a business owner who is concerned that you will not be able to attract the best and brightest employees because you may not be able to offer domestic partner benefits and companies located in other states will.
10 thoughts on “Reason #8: Vote NO if…”
Comments are closed.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Until last year, no company in VA could offer Domestic Partner benefits, yet the state was doing quite well, thank you.
Currently, Virginia is the most business-freindly state, according to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/08/15/virginia-business-climate_cz_kb_0815virginia.html). It wasn’t even close:
“The state, called ‘Earth’s only paradise’ by poet Michael Drayton, dominated our rankings, placing in the top ten in each of the six categories we examined: business costs, economic climate, growth prospects, labor, quality of life and regulatory environment. No other state placed in the top ten in more than three categories.
“We looked at a total of 30 metrics within the six general categories, and Virginia scored in the top half of all but three of them (high school attainment, five-year income growth and cost of living). The next best-performing states, North Carolina and Colorado, scored in the bottom 50% in nine metrics. Our second-ranked state overall, Texas, had 12 metrics where it ranked outside the top half.”
I seriously doubt that the passage of this amendment will jeopardize our position.
Jack – your post (2 of them, actually) got hung up in my spam filter. Since the other one was identical to this one (with the exception of the link to the Forbes article), I deleted that one.
And I have to point out that you are wrong about no companies in VA offering domestic partner benefits. What changed last year was the ability of companies who purchased insurance from Virginia-chartered insurance companies were allowed to offer those benefits. VA law prohibited VA-chartered insurance companies from writing those policies, which only hurt small businesses in Virginia. Companies who were either self-insured or who purchased their insurance policies outside of VA could – and did – offer domestic partner benefits.
If this amendment passes, there is no doubt that a challenge will be made to prohibit such benefits, under the guise that it is one of the “rights, benefits, obligations, qualities or effects of marriage.” This is part of the reason why many in the business community are against this amendment.
Thanks. I wondered what had happened.
Thank you for the correction. It would actually have been good to know that a few years ago, when my company was debating the prospect. The company I worked for then is based in California. I believe the solution was to give affected Virginia employees a compensatory bonus. There were, of course, very few such employees, since most same-sex couples are DINKs (Dual Income, No Kids), so each got health insurance from his own employer.
I do not doubt that someone will raise a challenge. I do doubt that the challenge will succeed. I cannot even figure out how one would establish standing to bring such a suit. Even if the law is overturned, VA is so strong in so many categories that I do not think our position at the top of the list is threatened.
Jack – domestic partner benefits are not just for same-sex couples. They are for any unmarried couples.
I’m a bit surprised that the company that you worked for – especially one based in California – was unaware of the law.
We were aware of the law, but not of the intricacies you mentioned. The meeting at which the issue was discussed had only one lawyer (my boss), and she had long before gone back to engineering. All of us were engineers, even those who were managers. (Such is the way with small engineering companies.)
As for hetrosexual couples, they can, of course, get married.
That was not my point. My point was that you implied that the only people who benefitted from domestic partnership benefits were same-sex couples and that is not the case.
I really am tired of the BS argument that opposite-sex couples can get married. The fact that they choose NOT to do so is their right. You and others have no right telling them what to do.
Talk about the tyranny of the majority! What’s next? Interracial couples can’t marry? Oh, we’ve been down that path already.
People do have the right not to get married. However, if people chose not to accept the responsibilities of marriage, they chose not to get the benefits of marriage. That is their right. Choices have consequences.
And what are these responsibilities that married people have, and unmarried couples don’t, Jack?
Oh, so you can’t accept the responsibilities without the benefits? Hm – tell that to the 130,000 unmarried couples in Virginia.
Vivian, that is, essentially, correct. The word “responsibility” is based on the word “respond.” One is required to respond to certain situations in certain ways. One can do the same things as a married person, but not be REQUIRED to do so. For instance, I cannot designate another person as the beneficiary of my 401(k) without my wife’s signature. An unmarried person can designate his spouse as the beneficiary, or not. He cannot be held responsible if he does not.
One spouse is responsible for the other’s cheating on the taxes. Unmarried couples cannot take that responsibility, even if they want to. (They can pony up the money for the taxes and penalties, but they cannot be criminally liable.)
An unmarried person can just leave his partner. No alimony is required.
If there are no benefits to marriage, why get married?