Why paying for "domestic partners" is an issue of fairness - Editor's Memo - Editorial

The issue of what happened to Apple Computer Corp. in Williamson County, Texas, needs to be placed in perspective. It is an issue of fairness.

As you may know, some residents of Williamson County wanted to exclude Apple from opening an office complex there because Apple pays for health Care for domestic partners. Such exclusion would be tantamount to gay bashing and is an unacceptable form of discrimination.

In explaining why he voted against offering Apple tax incentives to build there, Williamson County Commissioner David Hays explained, "If I had voted yes, I would have had to walk into my church with people saying,

"There is the man who brought homosexuality into Williamson County."'

After the vote, Texas Gov. Ann Richards pleaded with Apple to consider locating in other places in Texas. In fact, Apple had no shortage of relocation offers from Texas towns. To these towns, the issue of domestic partners was left as it should be: as a private matter between an employer and its workers.

Fortunately, fairness won out over what's called "family values," and Williamson County finally voted to support the tax incentives.

By definition, corporations that offer benefits to domestic partners do so for two adults who share an emotional, physical, and financial relationship similar to that of married couples. Whether they are gay, lesbian, or heterosexual, these couples either choose not to or cannot marry.

One company that pays for benefits for domestic partners is Levi Strauss, the large clothing maker in San Francisco. Reese Smith, director of employee benefits for Levi Strauss, was instrumental in having the company adopt its domestic partners policy. Levi Strauss employs 25,000 people in the United States. As it happens, half of them are in Texas.

Levi's corporate policy states that it does not discriminate on the basis of race, age, sex, color, nationality, veteran's status, disability, perceived disability, or sexual orientation. When the policy was issued, employees noted that married partners of heterosexual employees received benefits and that under the company's policy, the same should be true for the partners of gays and lesbians.

Corporations such as Apple and Levi Strauss are to be applauded for recognizing that extending such benefits is, as Smith says, simply a matter of equity.

COPYRIGHT 1994 A Thomson Healthcare Company
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group