IN all modesty, one of my gifts is the ability to boil down extremely complicated issues into simple ones. For example, here's my version of how the new reciprocal beneficiaries law led to a federal lawsuit filed by five major local employers. Why employers are
mad at LegislatureIt hit me after meetings with the plaintiffs' human resources managers, lobbyists and attorney, and two of the three sparring legislators who co-authored the bill.
Here's the scoop:
The 1997 Legislature received a mandate from the people to stop same-gender marriage, after the Hawaii Supreme Court found no compelling reason to block it.
Sens. Matt Matsunaga and Avery Chumbley, and Rep. Terrance Tom went at it in conference committee meetings, trying to work out legislation. The House and Senate were of opposite minds on whether committed homosexual couples should enjoy the same rights and benefits as married couples.
Their deliberations were very complex. Business lobbyists monitored their progress, but early in the session the business community wasn't worried about the bill. The economic impact of extending health insurance benefits to life-partners of gay workers would be minimal, they surmised.
But these lobbyists say they didn't anticipate that, as the session came to a close, the Legislature would deliver a surprise compromise affecting both government and private sector workers.
Rep. Tom refused to give rights and benefits only to homosexual couples and not to other pairings, such as a mother and child. Meanwhile, Sens. Matsunaga and Chumbley insisted that health insurance benefits not be excluded from any package of rights for same-sex couples. The reciprocal beneficiaries law was born.
It extended benefits "presently available only to married couples to couples composed of two individuals who are legally prohibited from marrying under state law." Under the law, these benefits include health insurance coverage.
The state's largest employers panicked! Their doom-and-gloom financial forecasts went from bad to worse to worst.
Bad: Employees could form reciprocal beneficiary arrangements with uninsured relatives and acquaintances to get them covered under their corporate health plans.
Worse: Employees could set up reciprocal beneficiaries arrangements with total strangers for a fee.
Worst: If health-care expenditures soared, employers would either have to cut back on salaries or other benefits, or cover only employees and not their dependents.
Dismayed by these possibilities, five large employers hired attorney John D'Amato to file a lawsuit in federal court. They want the judge to strike down the section of the new law that has to do with extending health insurance coverage to reciprocal beneficiaries. The employers believe the safeguards built into the law are not adequate protection from abuse.
SIMPLE, huh? The way to clear up this whole convoluted mess is simple, too. All the Legislature has to do next year is to give reciprocal beneficiaries rights, including health insurance, only to same-sex couples residing together in Hawaii.
That way, almost everybody is happy: the companies, gay employees, most non-gay employees, and Sens. Matsunaga and Chumbley. As it is, the only one smiling now is Rep. Tom, who said he warned businesspeople during the session that the new law would hit 'em where it hurts: right in the ol' bottom line.