Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
1albion
2theleastofus
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
Edmund Burke 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
3theleastofus
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
AlexRosenberg
199
11632
1jesusandjohnwayne
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
Maria Popova 360x1000
storyparadox3
1gucci
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
11albion
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
1empireofpain
4albion
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
storyparadox2
Storyparadox1
2albion
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
2transadentilist
2falsewitness
Betty Friedan 360x1000
499
Tad Friend 360x1000
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
2gucci
5albion
3paradise
2trap
3albion
12albion
7albion
Richard Posner 360x1000
13albion
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
5confidencegames
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
6albion
3confidencegames
2defense
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
1paradide
1transcendentalist
2lafayette
299
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch2
8albion'
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
1falsewitness
7confidencegames
9albion
1theleasofus
1confidencegames
1trap
1lauber
Gilgamesh 360x1000
George F Wil...360x1000
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
1lafayette
2paradise
3defense
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Learned Hand 360x1000
10abion
1madoff
2jesusandjohnwayne
6confidencegames
14albion
1defense
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
399
4confidencegames
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
2confidencegames
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
2lookingforthegoodwar
LillianFaderman
Originally Published on forbes.com on March 3rd, 2012

______________________________________

I have written a bit about the great work that Boston based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) has been doing on marriage equality and other LGBT issues.  I am very pleased to have a guest post from a member of GLAD’s legal staff outlining the reasons that motivate many large corporations to take a principled stand against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.
“Our principles are not platitudes.”
by Vickie Henry
Senior Staff Attorney
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
American businesses may have been caught by surprise by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – the federal law passed in 1996 that said for all federal purposes, legally married same sex couples are, in fact, not married. The couples can’t file their federal taxes jointly, or receive each other’s Social Security benefits, or inherit from each other tax-free, or do more than 1,000 other things that straight married couples can do.
But as more states adopted marriage equality – right now couples can marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York and the District of Columbia* – more businesses had to learn what this outrageous law meant for them as employers. And as the amicus brief that businesses such as Xerox, BNY Mellon, Aetna, and filed in Gill v. Office Personnel Management shows, they don’t like it.
Gill is one of two federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of DOMA filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the New England-based legal organization working to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and HIV status, on behalf of a group of married same-sex couples and gay widowers from Massachusetts that have been denied federal benefits because of the law. First Circuit Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of the plaintiffs back in 2010, a decision that was appealed by Congress’ Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG). Appellate arguments are scheduled for April 4 in Boston
The business brief was filed with the appeals court in support of the plaintiffs.
As the companies state in the brief, “Federal law provides to the working family many benefits and protections relating to healthcare, protected leave, and retirement. These protections provide security and support to an employee grappling with sickness, disability, childcare, family crisis, or retirement, allowing the employee to devote more focus and attention to his work.” In other words, federal law enables good employers to be good employers
But DOMA messes that up: “DOMA conscripts amici to become the face of its discrimination,” they write.”As employers, we must administer employment-related health plans, retirement plans, family leave, and COBRA. We must impute the value of spousal healthcare benefits to our employees’ detriment. We must intrude on their privacy by investigating the gender of their spouses, and then treat one employee less favorably, or at minimum differently, when each is as lawfully-married as the other. We must do all of this in states that prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and demand equal treatment of all married individuals. This conscription has harmful consequences.”
Their brief does not make a constitutional argument about DOMA, but focuses on the practical burdens that DOMA places on businesses. Still, I am very heartened (in this Occupy Wall Street moment in time) to find that these businesses’ core motivation for standing up against DOMA is principled.

“Our mission statements are not simply plaques in the lobby. Statements of principle are our agenda for success: born of corporate experience, tested in laboratory, factory, and office, attuned to competition. Our principles reflect, in the truest sense, our business judgment. By force of law, DOMA would rescind that judgment, and direct that we renounce these principles, or betray them.”
________________
*WashingtonState and Maryland recently passed marriage equality laws that will likely be subject to voter referenda in November.
——————

 

You can follow me on twitter  @peterreillycpa.