If you weren't aware, the website GayWheels.com has been compilling a list for some time now of gay friendly automakers. Entrance into the club is simple, an automaker just has to offer domestic-partner benefits to its GLBT employees regardless of where they work or live in the U.S. Nissan has recently announced that it will be extending domestic-partner benefits to its employees (including those employed by infiniti) in the U.S., and thus has become the 31st and 32nd name on the list of gay friendly automakers. Nissan's revision to its domestic-partner policy will go into effect on January 1st, 2007. Employees in the sales and marketing division of the company have had domestic-partner benefits since early last year, but this will be the first time the benefits have been extended to workers in the manufacturing division.
Feel free to comment, but keep it civil or the privelage will be turned off.
[Source: GayWheels.com]
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
GM on Corvette ZR1 cancellation rumor: "Not true."
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 9)
Carguy @ Nov 21st 2006 6:37PM
About time - any discrimination based on race, sex or sexual preference is absurd and ignorant. It is in the automaker's financial interest to have GLBT customers and to select their employees on skill alone. James Dobson's crusade against Ford isn't working so expect more car makers to join the list.
AlB @ Nov 21st 2006 6:43PM
Would you give boyfriend/girlfriend couples the same benefits as you would to married couples? No. Then why should gay/lesbian/transexual/bigender be any different? Being married is simple, union between man and woman and nothing else.
Alfred Verhoeven @ Sep 24th 2008 5:14AM
Well, not SO simple, really... It is the ignorance in regarding people as human beings, and the constraint look at marriage as a man to woman exclusivity.
I live in the Netherlands, and am very proud that we were (again) the first country in the world to acknowledge that homosexuals are as human as other people. So - marriage and all that goes with it was opened for same-sex couples a few years ago. I gratefully accepted that opportunity. In the meantime, 5 other countries have followed, and now gradually, basic human rights in the US have expanded to gay men and women, for instance in California.
I hope that, in time, your eyes may be opened, as well as your heart.
Chris @ Nov 21st 2006 6:47PM
With all the talk about Ghosn looking for a partner, I'm not surprised.
Brad @ Nov 21st 2006 6:51PM
I can't believe I'm feeding the troll here, but notice that the terminology is "Domestic Partners." At least at my company, the term domestic partner refers to some one with whom you have been living for a minimum amount of time (e.g. 6 months). Nothing about gender.
So, you ask should a boyfriend/girlfriend get these benefits? If they've been living together for 10 years and for whatever reason decide that the institution of marriage is not for them, then why not?
This isn't a constitutional ammendment. It's a choice made by employers for the benefit of their employees. And something like this benefits all employees. As an employee of such a company, I know that my coworkers and their families are taken care of, regardless of their preference or ability to employ the institution of marriage.
retsel @ Nov 21st 2006 6:55PM
when i have nothing good too say... i say nothing...
kpluck @ Nov 21st 2006 7:15PM
So would people that are just roommates be covered? Because it sounds like at Brad's workplace they would be. The term 'domestic patner" just seems too vague to base a policy on but I guess that would depend how a individual company defines it.
Just to be clear I have no problem with companys offering such benefits.
Gale @ Nov 21st 2006 7:19PM
"Would you give boyfriend/girlfriend couples the same benefits as you would to married couples? No. Then why should gay/lesbian/transexual/bigender be any different?"
Big difference. Boyfriend and girlfriend have the right at anytime to get married and get benefits the conventional way. I'm not arguing one way or the other, it just is obvious there's a difference there.
It's also obvious some people in 2006 still think a person's orientation is a choice. LOL
Why does Nissan get all this attention when GM, Ford, Toyota and a host of others have been offering this coverage for years? A factor in all large companies' decisions on this issue is the fact that several states require such coverage legally, so to limit this benefit for others requires two sets of books, which is inefficient in addition to being perceived as unfair.
Lee @ Nov 21st 2006 7:20PM
>2. Would you give boyfriend/girlfriend couples the same benefits as you would to married couples? No.
Actually, in this case, yes. It doesn't say "gay" benefits, it says "domestic-partner" benefits. That is not exclusive of anyone.
Devin Lussier @ Nov 21st 2006 7:41PM
This is what they mean by domestic partnerships: http://www.weho.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/nav/navid/8/
smooth sailin @ Nov 21st 2006 8:09PM
Sociologically speaking.Establishing domestic partnerships soley to recognize "gay" relationships is eliteist.By rights anyone who identifies themselves by their sexual practices (or other co-dependancy issues) and wishes celebrate that union in the public square with a like-minded individual would have to also qualify for domestic partnership benefits.so domestic partnerships are behavior based.
BOB @ Nov 21st 2006 8:26PM
_______________________________________________
WOW!!!! ARE SOME OF THE COMMENTS IGNORANT!!!!
___________________________________________________
"Sexual orientation" refers to WHICH sex (gender) you want, not to a decision to have sexual relations.
If Brian can truly only love men, and Cindy can only truly love women, they are left out of WORKPLACE benefits which only apply to married heterosexuals. Companies have to change this or lose gay employees to competitors. (apart from fairness issues)
If you want to mention SPECIAL RIGHTS, the right to discriminate and leave people out, if such a right exists, it is not one that can be brought into the workplace. Kindly move to a totalitarian country if you disagree, rather than trying to make the U.S. into one.
AJD @ Nov 21st 2006 8:29PM
I really hate people and groups w/agendas. Both liberal & conservative. I don't want to hear about your personal life. Get up, go to work, pay your taxes, be a good citizen, and keep your agendas at home.
BTW, My dog has been living in my house for a two years. Maybe I can talk my company into helping with the vet bill.
BOB @ Nov 21st 2006 8:34PM
OMG!!!
I was replying to 2,5, and 10. Now I see number 11.
Perhaps any good people who are "on the fence" about the subject will read that KKK comment and realize that all Americans must be treated equally, whether we like them or not, and disregarding whether we are jealous of their ability to live their lives the way they feel they must.
Why can't we trust that people are doing what is in their hearts? Probably those first to condemn others are those with the emptiest hearts, a pity!
AJD @ Nov 21st 2006 8:34PM
If Brian can truly only love two men, and Cindy can only truly love two women. Does that mean they should get benefits for both men and both women?
BOB @ Nov 21st 2006 8:40PM
Number 15 -- I dont think it is discriminatory to ask that everyone have only one spouse or domestic partner. Polygamy is illegal in 50 states.
All the stuff about doggies and special rights and agendas means "I don't care if you are hurt. I don't want to think about you." Not so different from "Why did that uppity Rosa Parks go and have to spoil everything?"
PJ @ Nov 21st 2006 8:40PM
Hey, #11, thanks for helping get the comments shut off! I knew it would only be a matter of time before the idiot cavalry rode in.
I don't paint all hard-core conservatives with the same brush, just to clarify. But it's interesting how many of the people who spew hatred at the notion of these domestic-partner benefits are the same ones who, on any other corporate topic, yell 'til they're blue in the face about "Let companies figure their own regulations out! It's a free market! Practice pure capitalism! Don't impose your values on a corporation!" And so forth.
PJ @ Nov 21st 2006 8:41PM
AJD - extrapolating the domestic-partner and gay-marriage issues into various outrageous forms of sexual deviance do not constitute an argument. I'm sick of the "what's next? Domestic partnerships for dogs? Men marrying horses?" angle.
No one's asking for any of that. Gays want benefits and/or marriage to one gay partner. That's the only issue being pushed.
Your former argument is equivalent to a liberal saying, "smaller government? What's next? NO government? Outlawing government? Government trying to marry horses? God, what is the world coming to?!"
John @ Nov 21st 2006 8:46PM
You all need to grow up and let people live like they want. They don't affect you, so why should you give a damn? Is your "union between a man and a woman" such a sham that you have to have something such as an amendment "protecting" it?
This BS is just another crutch people use to rely on when they're too weak to rely on themselves.
AJD @ Nov 21st 2006 8:50PM
I am talking about moral relativity here. I believe you can read the quote by Bob above and he states "realize that all Americans must be treated equally" So why can't I define what my idea of what marriage is. If I believe marriage should be between a man and three wives. Should these Americans be "treated equally."
I don't know where the whole sex with animals came in?
I have cute little Jack Russell and was stating it would be nice if my employer would cover the vet bills. Some people are sooo sick.
Just be careful when you travel down the moral relativity road with the idea of treating all Americans equally.
BTW. Rosa Parks was black and forced to sit in the back of the bus. The last time I checked no one is making gays ride in the back of the bus. Most gays I know are doing rather well for themselves.
I just don't care about your little agenda and most Americans feel the same way.