cmanteuf writes:
This bad law doesn't just affect homosexuals. Hypothetical example of how this is bad for heterosexuals as well: if, God forbid, my father were to die tomorrow, my mother, who is fully disabled and needs upwards of 20k/year medicines, would be impossible to insure unless she got married again. And bluntly, a 50+ disabled woman doesn't have much in the way of marriage prospects.
But the state legislature was so concerned with hating on gays that they can't be bothered to think about the consequences.
I think you are wrong there. That is "spouse and dependents" of the employee. Your mother could become your dependent. This just keeps people living together but not married from using one employee's insurance.
I think allowing gays to get married would avoid any controversy or problems with this. As it stands now, the gays can fight that insurance law and probably win. Thus they would get coverage without being legally committed to each other. This would open the door (it has in other states) for non-married heterosexual couples to get insurance coverage for both from one employer. This raises the cost for the employers and the state while providing no incentive for committed relationships.