Clearer path to benefits policy

Now that same-sex partners can legally marry in Iowa, employers - public and private - have reasonable cause to review their benefits programs for all employees with partners.

Before the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited same-sex couples from marrying, a sizable minority of public and private employers offered domestic partner benefits to committed same-sex couples who would otherwise be ineligible.

Extending health insurance benefits to committed domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees seemed fair for many employers when Iowa's laws denied those couples the right to legally wed.

But now that the

inequality has been righted, employers have a clear pathway to provide benefits to married couples only. Different standards for same-sex and opposite-sex couples aren't justified now that all couples have equal access to marriage.

Johnson County and the city of Iowa City officials are planning such a change in benefits policy. For more than a decade, they have extended health insurance benefits to their employees' committed same-sex partners. To be eligible, couples signed affidavits declaring their domestic partnership. Other criteria included showing that they shared financial accounts and housing expenses, for example.

It was the best way available to handle an unequal distinction over which the employer had no control - that some employees could marry the person of their choice and others could not.

But marriage equality has rendered the distinction obsolete. Same-sex couples who wish to commit now can tie the knot in legally recognized marriage.

Domestic partner benefits are more common in the private sector, but they're not unheard of in the public arena.

For example, the Cedar Rapids school district, state universities and regents schools offer benefits for domestic partners, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Richard Saunders, University of Iowa director of benefits and payroll, told a Gazette reporter that domestic partner benefits can be a powerful recruiting tool for the school.

We can see how a company or organization might want to keep offering domestic partner benefits if the costs are outweighed by the benefits. Yet in this economic climate, many employers might find it attractive to offer benefits only to married couples rather than extend it to all partnerships.

That's fair, even if it may negatively affect a few employees. It's important for a company or government entity's policy to be consistent.

We also find value to society in encouraging all serious couples to be committed in legal marriage. At the same time, we see no need for state legislation mandating that benefits go only to married couples. Give this new option a chance to evolve.