A new poll from Vanderbilt University shows that support for legally recognizing same-sex couples continues to grow in Tennessee, but at rates slower than the rest of the country. A 49 percent plurality now support civil unions or marriage equality, while 46 percent remain opposed to both. Still, 62 percent believe that gays and lesbians should receive health insurance and other employee benefits for their partners, while only 31 percent oppose that idea.

A number of anti-gay bills related to education died in the Tennessee legislature this year, but lawmakers did designate August 31 as “ido4life Traditional Marriage Day,” a day committed to condemning same-sex marriage.

Texas AG Greg Abbott advocating for the public display of The Ten Commandments.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) has issued new guidance stating that domestic partnerships are unconstitutional under the Texas state Constitution’s amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples. However, his decision does contain a certain nuance that would still allow for same-sex couples to receive their partners’ health benefits. Abbott points out that recognizing relationships “similar” to marriage — like domestic partnerships — is unconstitutional, but, citing a lawmaker’s remarks when Texas passed its marriage amendment, he explains that the health benefits themselves are:

Representative Chisum’s statement simply explains that article I, section 32 does not, in his view, address whether a political subdivision may provide health benefits to the unmarried partner of an employee. The constitutional provision does, however, explicitly prohibit a political subdivision from creating or recognizing a legal status identical or similar to marriage. The political subdivisions you ask about have not simply provided health benefits to the partners of their employees. Instead, they have elected to create a domestic partnership status that is similar to marriage. Further, they have recognized that status by making it the sole basis on which health benefits may be conferred on the domestic partners of employees.

This presents a challenging space for employers who wish to recognize same-sex couples. The primary criterion that Abbott explains is problematic to domestic partnerships is that the requirement for their recognition is too similar to marriage, including that applicants must attest that they are not married and have no undissolved relational conflicts. Hypothetically, municipalities could offer employees the opportunity to designate a single beneficiary without requiring such qualifications for recognition and thus not violate the constitution at all.

Of course, Abbott’s opinion is nonbinding, and thus nothing is preventing domestic partnerships from continuing — only a court responding to a legal challenge could invalidate them. Currently, Dallas County and the cities of Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, as well as Pflugerville School District, all offer domestic partnerships. Pflugerville was undoubtedly the specific target for the request for Abbott’s guidance, but district officials say the December decision to offer the benefits was simply a business decision by the insurance committee that does not cost the district or the taxpayers.

Two Republican Texas lawmakers have filed bills that would cut funding for schools and universities that have policies supporting their LGBT students and staff.

Last fall, the Pflugerville School District announced it would be the first in Texas to offer domestic partner benefits to the same-sex partners of its teachers and staff. State Rep. Drew Springer (R) isn’t happy about this, and has filed a bill (HB 1568) to cut 7.5 percent of a district’s healthcare funding if it offers such benefits. In his press release introducing the legislation, Springer didn’t shy away from his intention of punishing Pflugerville for recognizing same-sex relationships:

SPRINGER: Our tax-dollars are for educating kids, not for enacting policies that attempt to get the state to recognize homosexual relationships. To think Pflugerville has sued the state for more funding, while at the same time bankrolling a lifestyle most Texans do not agree with is quite disturbing to me.

Meanwhile, Rep. Matt Krause (R), an attorney with the Liberty Counsel, has introduced HB 360, a bill not unlike one that just passed in Virginia that would cut funding for any university that does not allow its religious student groups to discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. Of course, these are groups that are using campus funding that all students pay into, and thus all students should have equal access. The bill claims that forcing religious groups to accept students who do not abide by their beliefs “violates the organization’s members” First Amendment rights” of free exercise of religion and freedom of association. Unfortunately, the First Amendment does not include “the right to receive university funding and recognition even while discriminating against university students.” Krause’s chief of staff explained the the bill is being redrafted to be more narrow, but its core legislation is offensive regardless.

These two bills suggest that for Texas Republicans, discriminating against LGBT people is more important than funding education. Nothing but animus can motivate such priorities.

It took 17 months, but the Defense Department has finally issued guidance about benefits that can be extended to the same-sex partners of military servicemembers now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” no longer requires that they hide their identities. The list does not address some serious issues of concern, including health care, housing, and survivor benefits because of the Defense of Marriage Act, but does allow servicemembers to designate specific protections to their partners, including some through the recognition of a domestic partnership. Here are a few of the new benefits:

Member-Designated Benefits

• Service Members Group Life Insurance Beneficiary
• Veterans’ Group Life Insurance Beneficiary
• Survivor Benefit Plan Beneficiary for Retirees
• Casualty Notification
• Designation of Persons Having Interest in Status of a Missing Member
• Hospital Visitation Privileges
• Designation of Persons Authorized to Direct Disposition of Remains of Members of the Armed Force
• Presentation of the Flag of the United States

Additional Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners

• Dependent ID cards
• Commissary Privileges
• Exchange Privileges
• Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs
• Emergency Leave
• Youth Programs
• Family Center Programs
• Child Care
• Legal Assistance
• Joint Duty Assignments

The memo announcing the benefits notes that should the Defense of Marriage Act no longer apply to the department, policy will be to “construe the words ‘spouse’ and ‘marriage’ without regard to sexual orientation, and married couples, irrespective of sexual orientation, and their dependents, will be granted full military benefits.” It also contains a new process for same-sex couples to declare to the military that they are, in fact, domestic partners, which presumably even couples that are already married would have to fulfill to receive the benefits.

OutServe-SLDN praised outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for “getting us a few steps closer to full equality.”

Hopes for legal recognition of same-sex couples in Wyoming were dashed Wednesday, as the Wyoming House voted down a domestic partnership bill with a 24-34 vote. A House committee had similarly voted down a same-sex marriage bill earlier this week, but advanced the domestic partner bill to the full chamber.

Meanwhile, the Equality State’s Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-1 to approve Senate File 131, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Before its passage, an amendment was added that specifies that religious organizations would still be free to make hiring decisions according to their beliefs. Three of the yes votes were Republicans.

(HT: Box Turtle Bulletin.)

In November, after marriage equality passed in Washington state, the Boeing Company said it would not extend survivor benefits to the same-sex spouses of its employees. The company argued that the benefits were governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and as a federal law it was governed by the Defense of Marriage Act — in other words, Boeing wasn’t providing the benefits because it didn’t have to. Now, according to the union currently negotiating a new contract for the technical workers, the company has agreed to voluntarily provide the pension benefits.

Ray Goforth, executive director of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001, provided the new language to The Stranger:

Recognizing Boeing’s commitment to equality without regard to sexual orientation, Boeing will extend pension survivor benefits to all spouses, as defined under either State or Federal law whichever defines the same sex person as a spouse.

Goforth further explained that if the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by the Supreme Court this year, the language will protect same-sex couples in any state, even if that state does not itself recognize marriage equality:

“This language also protects members if same-sex marriage is recognized at the federal level but made illegal at the state level,” Goforth says. For example, benefits could still apply if the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is struck down and marriage equality is legal, “but then a state adopts its own discriminatory statute,” he says.

A Change.org petition challenging Boeing’s obstinance had garnered over 79,000 signatures.

Studies have shown that providing inclusive benefits improves recruitment, retention, innovation, customer service, productivity, employee relations, and morale for businesses both large and small.

Boeing Company — one of the largest global aircraft manufacturers in the world — has told its union that it will likely deny “pension survivor benefits to same-sex married couples” in Washington State, even after voters approved marriage equality in November, The Stranger reports.

Union representative Ray Goforth told The Stranger that Boeing during contract negotiations, the company maintained that pension benefits are governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and that it does not plan to voluntarily offer benefits to the partners of their gay and lesbian employees. The Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples, even if states allow for such unions:

Goforth explains that his union has long sought equal pension benefits for same-sex domestic partners, to no avail. But since voters approved same sex marriage—establishing parity with married straight couples—Goforth re-framed the proposal to apply to his union’s gay Boeing employees who wed. “Their answer was that they had no intention of granting pension survivor benefits to legally married same-sex couples because they didn’t have to,” Goforth explains. Boeing representatives told him that pensions are governed by federal law, which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, thereby trumping the state law on the matter.

“We were profoundly disappointed to see that they would use a loophole to engage in institutionalized discrimination,” Goforth says.

Since Slog published its report, Boeing issued a statement promising to reassess the impact of Washington State’s marriage equality referendum on company policy. “Boeing is taking a closer look at how R-74 might impact company policies once it takes effect in December,” the statement said. “Nothing is ever final in negotiations until they’re over,” a company spokesperson told the Slog. “What we said today is that [these pension benefits] are not currently addressed in the contract.”

A growing number of companies are offering equal benefits for equal work, regardless of sexual orientation and recognizing that “treating all workers equally makes good business sense.” “Research consistently shows that unfair and discriminatory work environments cripple an employer’s ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest. These negative environments also stifle job performance and productivity.”

Mitt Romney’s campaign seemed to flip-flop last week on whether he supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage, but the convoluted clarification demonstrated that his positions on the issue are purely political and as insensitive as ever.

After last week’s debate, campaign senior adviser Bay Buchanan told The Advocate that Romney opposes marriage equality, but that “it’s a state issue” and that Romney “would not get in the way of what states decide to do on marriage and adoption.” As Buzzfeed pointed out, this seemed very much to conflict with the candidate’s pledge to pass a federal marriage amendment and institute a three-tier system, allowing married same-sex couples to stay married, but not new couples to get married. Buchanan clarified on Saturday that Romney does still support such an amendment:

BUCHANAN: Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage.

There is precedent for Romney’s support for hospital visitation, though his support for same-sex adoption is less consistent, particularly given his past comments that “children pay the price” of marriage equality. But as The New Civil Rights Movement and Talk About Equality have pointed out, there is something actually quite jarring about the fact that he considers hospital visitation a “benefit,” with no concern if states choose not to offer it. It’s quite unclear whether such a “benefit” would even be constitutional if Romney were successful in advancing a federal marriage amendment. Besides, states like New Jersey have shown that in the absence of the title of “marriage,” hospitals are quite reluctant to honor same-sex relationships regardless of what separate-but-equal substitute recognition is offered.

Entrusting a loved one to make crucial medical decisions and be by your side in emergencies should never be something up for states to decide. Romney clearly doesn’t have families in mind — he just wants to appeal to both conservatives and moderates by having no discernible position at all.