When it comes to providing benefits for employees, defining domestic partners is important. The phrase “domestic partners” is used to describe same-sex couples in a committed long-term relationship, but can include unmarried heterosexual partnerships as well. Vermont’s recent legislation, “An Act Relating to Civil Unions”(ARCU), passed by the Vermont House and the Senate on March 16^th and April 19th respectively, and signed by Governor Howard Dean on April 26^th, clears up any discrepancy. The domestic partnership of a same–sexed couple will now be recognized in law as a “civil union”. Same–sex couples can now be parties to a “civil union” that will give them, as the Act states, “ all of the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law… as are granted to spouses in a marriage”. To establish a civil union, same–sex couples can apply for a civil union license at their town clerk’s office. The legislation maintains a distinction between a civil union and a marriage by defining marriage as a legally recognized union between a man and a woman.

The ARCU came into being after the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Vermont (Dec. 1998), where it was unanimously decided that same-sex couples were unconstitutionally denied the rights and benefits that married couples have.

Some of the benefits that the ARCU states will apply to “civil unions” are; worker’s compensation benefits, family leave benefits and group insurance of state employees. Although the act does not require employers to provide benefit coverage to the parties of a civil union, insurers will have to offer the same coverage to everyone. It will be the employer’s decision whether to purchase group health insurance and which employees will be eligible.

What does this mean to Employers?

What counts for employers is cost. And what is most evident is that giving same–sex partners the same benefits coverage as their married co-workers has not cost employers a great deal of money. Most companies have found that the percentage of employees opting for these benefits is very low. According to the Hewitt Associates publication “Domestic Partners and Employee Benefits,” less than 3% of employees elect to take the domestic partner coverage (this includes heterosexual as well same-sex partners) offered by their employers. One reason for this is that the cost of the benefits are considered income and so taxed if the domestic partner is not a legal spouse. Another reason is employee unwillingness to make their private relationships a matter of public knowledge in the workplace.

After the Exxon-Mobil merger (Dec. 30, 1999) health benefits coverage was limited to “legally recognized” partnerships. Mobil’s domestic partner benefits program was discontinued. The reasons given for stopping the program were problems associated with determining what was a legitimate relationship and the belief that it was discriminatory to offer benefits to same-sex partners but not unmarried heterosexual partners. An Exxon-Mobil spokesperson said that they would comply with the law of whatever country they were operating in and offered Holland and Canada as two examples where they would offer benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Same-Sex Benefits in Canada

The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act (MBOA) was introduced in Canada’s House of Commons February 11, 2000. As in Vermont it was a Supreme Court decision (M. v H., May 1999) that paved the way for this legislation. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the definition of spouse in the Ontario Family Law Act violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating against same-sex couples. The MBOA will ensure that same-sex common-law partners will now have the same benefits and obligations as opposite-sex common-law partners. In Canada a heterosexual common-law partner would be the same as a heterosexual domestic partner in the United States. The MBOA will amend 68 federal statutes to extend the same benefits and obligations to same-sex partners as those enjoyed by common-law opposite sex partners. The Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, said “the fiscal impact of these amendments will be minimal… this is not a cost issue.”