Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Monday, March 8, 2010

SSM and employee benefits

By Rob Vischer

Thanks to Fr. Araujo (and others) for responding to my post asking how the extension of benefits to same-sex spouses legitimizes same-sex marriage.  I'm trying to figure out what's doing the "work" of legitimization here: whether it's the very fact that benefits are being extended to a same-sex partner that matters, or whether it's the message sent by that extension, which obviously will depend on the circumstances.  Let's say that, in a state where SSM is not recognized, the state legislature, rather than passing a law recognizing SSM and forbidding discrimination against same-sex spouses in the provision of employment benefits, passed the following law:

The state government will not enter into a contract for services with any organization unless the organization 1) makes health care coverage available to its employees; and 2) makes coverage available for the employee's dependents, as well as for one other adult with whom the employee is in a caregiving relationship, as designated by the employee.

Inartful legislative drafting aside, would this still be a problem for Catholic organizations? 

https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/03/ssm-and-employee-benefits.html

Vischer, Rob | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515a9a69e201310f7ca245970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference SSM and employee benefits :

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This essentially allows a single employee's definition of a caregiving relationship to determine whether (for example) Catholic Charities can receive funds to run a homeless shelter. It seems like a sort of legal blackmail, whereby legislators force organizations to provide benefits for same-sex couples at the risk of endangering the organizations work and clientele.

Aside from the rather heavy-handed imposition, I think this would still present a problem for a Catholic organization. Even if, initially, there were no employees in a same-sex relationship, every contract the organization maintained with the state could, at any moment, be in jeopardy because of an employee's decision to enter a same-sex relationship and demand funds.