UMass: no health coverage for unmarried same-sex partners

[Bill McBlueState]

Yesterday, the Univeristy of Massachusetts administration announced that same-sex domestic partners will no longer be covered under employee health plans unless they can produce a marriage certificate. This dictum is subject to collective bargaining, so it won't necessarily take effect, but it is clearly the univeristy's intent to enact this.

I see this as a step backwards for progressives, because it cynically uses our victory in Massachusetts to reduce the number of people who have health insurance. But others see it as a step forward, in that gay and lesbian couples are now subject to the same regulations as opposite-sex couples.

The graduate employee union, by the way, had hoped to address the inequality by negotiating health coverage for opposite-sex domestic partners. That possibility has become much less likely now.

Which of these options best describes your views?

[illflem]

1. The University of Montana

tried to do the same thing. Even in a state where gay marriage was outlawed on the ballot the state supreme court overthrew it.