I know what you mean there Knot. I know that hubby and I were married under civil union law ourselves. Even though it's 'civil union', the laws still recognize it as a marriage, as does our insurance company.

Seems to me although UPS's intent may be for good reasons (I personally believe they're trying to get the state to say that civil unions ARE marriage), they're using the wording in their contracts as a means to hurt those they should be covering.

Okay, cool. Gotcha.

I doubt UPS's intentions are good. I think they are trying to get out of paying anyway they can.

If that was the case, then why are they emphasizing that they grant coverage to same-sex couples that are MARRIED under Massachusettes' law? If it was a case of simply wanting to get out of paying, then they wouldn't feel the need to mention that fact in their reason for excluding same-sex couples in civil unions under NJ law.

What they're looking for, from what I've read on their reasons, is for the state of NJ to say it is marriage, not just equal to marriage.

Knot, this is a great question. I think the reason there is so much angst about the topic is because most people do not know the answer.

First, there are two kinds of marriage.

Civil marriage is a three-party legal arrangement by which the government (party #1) recognizes two people (parties #2 and #3) as married. This provides them with over a thousand legal rights that two unmarried people do not have. But it has nothing to do with relgious institutions.

Then you have the form of marriage that nearly all religions offer. This is also a three-party arrangement by which the church (party #1) recognizes two people (parties #2 and #3) as married. This carries no legal weight whatsoever.

Most people who get married in a mainstream church in this country actually have both of these done at the same time, because the officiant has been legally recognized by the government as having the authority to grant a civil marriage. During or right after the church ceremony, he/she does this by having the two marrying parties sign a marriage license, which he/she also then signs.

A civil union is a newly-minted form of legal recognition for two people who wish to legally join. It came into prominence in this country as a result of the gay marriage debate. Is it legally the same as marriage? Well, no. It varies from place to place, based on what legal rights the local governments have decided to include as part of the arrangement. Also, some local governments do not recognize civil unions granted by other local governments, and others do. It's a confusing patchwork of laws that is still evolving.

Your sister and brother in law have a civil marriage. If that is the end of the story, their marriage is not formally recognized by any church.

You, as well, have only a civil marriage, because it is not formally recognized by any church.

So, are you "really" married? Well, it all depends who you believe has the authority to say what is a "real" marriage.

Some would say that a marriage is not "real" if it is not consecrated by a church.
Others would say that a marriage is not "real" if it is not legaly recognized by the government.
Still others would say both components are required for it to be "real."

And there are those (myself included) that differentiate between "real," "legal," and "consecrated" marriage. Marriage is not owned by the church or the government. Real marriage exists in the hearts of the couple in question. The church and the government can only choose to recognize it... they cannot create it or destroy it.

So, you tell me, knot... what is your standard?
Are you "really" married?

I agree completely.
And I hope that the NJ legal system fixes the situation ASAP.

This particular issue is a bit convoluted.

UPS does grant NON-UNION employees with civil unions the same health benefits as married employees. The catch comes to UNION employees. There is a UNION contract that states the company will not recognize any union but marriage. The problem here is not the company, but rather a union contract. If the employees are not members in the union, they are eligible for health benefits in NJ.

UPS awaits your collective apologies.

Ali, you are a bigger optimist than I am, and I dearly hope you are right.

But I suspsect their reason for talking about their policy in Mass. is strictly a PR ploy to shift the blame from themselves to the state of NJ, and save their reputation in the public eye.

"We'd LOVE to give these benefits to our employees, but we can't, thanks to the state of New Jersey."

I think if they wanted to give those benefits to their employees, they would DO it.

Then it is the union and their contract that is in violation of NJ law.

If the union cares about its employees and about avoiding spending time in court, it will work with UPS to fix this situation ASAP.

I agree, it is a legal mess, but I really don't think the families affected by it care who is at fault. They only care that they are under an extra (and illegal now) financial strain, and want it to stop.