Employee Policies and Benefits
Questions about extending employee benefits to "same sex domestic partners" and "domestic partners in committed heterosexual relationships" raised two concerns for respondents. A few worried about how the state would pay the extra people covered; far more were concerned about the legal status or definition of "domestic partner." Many of these suggested that marriage is the only reasonable status upon which to offer partner benefits to anyone, though this response ignores the discriminatory impact of such a policy on gays and lesbians, who are unable to attain married status in the state of Arizona. Workable definitions are not impossible to come up with, of course; a number of corporations and municipalities have done so, a subject we will take up in the Recommendations section of this report. Even given their budgetary and legal concerns, over half of the respondents felt that benefits should be extended to same sex and to opposite sex domestic partners (52% for both). Slightly more than a quarter disagreed, feeling that no domestic partners (28% for same sex, 27% for opposite sex) should be accorded benefits.
When asked whether they favored an affirmative action policy that would protect employees from discrimination based upon sexual orientation, almost three quarter (73.2%) of all respondents felt this would be a good idea. A minority were unsure (18%) and a small number were against this form of protection (7%).
If you have comments or suggestions, email Equity Chair, Noel Matkin at matkin@ccit.arizona.edu