The action of Creative Pultrusions Inc. joining the suit against homosexual unions in Pennsylvania, based upon benefits which might have to be made available to the same-sex spouse of an employee, seems ill-advised [“Executive joins suit against gay marriages,” May 31, Page 4].
If an employee's spouse is entitled to certain benefits, what difference does it make to the company if the spouse is straight, gay or otherwise? The cost to the company is the same, perhaps even less if maternity benefits are part of the equation.
Mr. [Bob] Sweet prefers that his employees enter a heterosexual union. Accordingly, he would have no problem paying marital benefits to the straight spouse of a gay employee — a marriage of convenience to be sure — the difference being that the marriage would involve two individuals of different sex and therefore be blessed by Mr. Sweet.
Is this really something we should be reading about in Plastics News?
Louis H. Nevell