United Parcel
Service has denied health care coverage to civil union
partners in New Jersey, according to Newark's local
newspaper The Star-Ledger. Although the company offers equal
benefits to married couples in Massachusetts, whether
straight or gay, it denies coverage to partners
in New Jersey civil unions because state law does not call
them "spouses."
"We were
supposed to be treated equally. We should be treated
equally," Toms River resident Heather Aurand
told The Star-Ledger. Aurand was denied health care
coverage by UPS, which employs her civil union partner,
Gabriael "Nickie" Brazier.
In a letter to
the couple, UPS stated that "New Jersey law does not
treat civil unions the same as marriages."Had the state
allowed same-sex marriages, the letter continued,
Aurand could have been included as a
"spouse" in the health coverage plan.
"This is a
problem the legislature created," Steven Goldstein,
chairman of the New Jersey gay rights group Garden
State Equality, told The Star-Ledger. "Civil unions are never in our
lifetime going to be respected by employers like
marriage."
Garden State
Equality has received 176 complaints from couples who say
their civil unions are not being honored, Goldstein added.
Some state
legislators have expressed shock over UPS's decision,
including Democratic assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo, who
supported the civil union law enacted last
December.
"We made it clear through the language and the
intent that when it came to issues like this, we fully
expected civil-unioned couples would be covered,"
Caraballo told The Star-Ledger.
But many
companies, including UPS, offer benefit plans governed by
federal law, which recognizes marriage only as a union
between a man and a woman. These companies have the
option to deny benefits to partners in other
relationships.
Aurand and
Brazier had hoped the new civil union law would give them
much-needed benefits.The couple, who
have been together for seven years, expressed dismay
when they received the letter from UPS.
"It was
devastating. We were for certain we would get
coverage," Aurand, who became a stay-at-home
mom after their son Zachary was born in 2004, said to The Star-Ledger. "Financially it puts a
burden on us. We have to pay a couple of hundred dollars a
month that we could be using for other things."
Many state
activists are calling for a resolution. "We've heard
from many legislators that this is something they want
to deal with in 2008," Goldstein told The Star-Ledger. "They know it's a disaster.
In the real world, civil unions are to marriage what
artificial sweetener is to sugar. It's not the same thing,
and it leaves a bad aftertaste." (The
Advocate)
