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