![Bugatti Bird-gate Followup: Driver identity revealed <b>[*UPDATE:</b> Now with actual crash video!]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/11/bugatti-veyron-swim-1258147199_143x85.jpg)
BMW goes gay-friendly in 2008
Gaywheels.com was started in 2005 and has since become a unique resource for GLBT auto enthusiasts and consumers. In addition to providing original content like interviews with gay members of the industry and, of course, vehicle reviews, the site maintains a list of gay-friendly automakers which provide domestic partner benefits to employees. The newest member? BMW. While the automaker's MINI and Rolls-Royce divisions were already accounted for, the parent was omitted because of it maintained unfriendly policies at a US facility . That's over now. Beginning January 1, 2008, BMW joined the club when it officially began granting partner benefits to employees at its South Carolina assembly plant. BMW's inclusion on the gay-friendly list brings the total count of marques to 35, leaving out only 1. As a benefit of making the list, gaywheels.com will now endorse the German automaker.
[Source: Gaywheels.com]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Ryan 12:34PM (1/04/2008)
tlacaeli -
Being a member of a privileged majority (white men), a minority I didn't choose (gay people) and a minority I did choose (vegetarians) I will try to address most of your comment.
Minorities tend to form groups for support, and to gain a sense of community. Gay websites, athletic events, cruises, etc. give the same experience to gay people that straight people get all the time--that is, being around people like yourself. I should also note that most of them do not exclude straight people who are gay-friendly.
Majorities don't need to do the things minorities do. Do you complain about there not being a "White History Month"? Does "Little People of America" grate on you as much as "International Lesbian and Gay Association"?
We accept you straight people, warts and all. All we ask is that you accept us, allow us the same rights, and don't complain when we still want to be ourselves.
Finally, I don't really believe that you are 100% okay with whatever we do in private--you wouldn't have gone out of your way to use words like "giver" and "taker" (seriously, who uses those words? No one I know) nor would you have complained about gay public displays of affection. Trust me, straight people foist their fondling and french-kissing upon the public with just as much enthusiasm and frequency as gay people do. Ask yourself why you haven't noticed that. If you have, ask yourself why it bothers you more when it's two guys.
MemphisNET 8:22AM (1/04/2008)
Its 2008. It's about time we start treating everyone as equals.
Reply
compy386 8:24AM (1/04/2008)
I agree. Props to BMW. I'm looking at you now Honda.
3seriesisking 12:50PM (1/04/2008)
Well put. A New Year and new opportunities.
Rocketboy 8:27AM (1/04/2008)
Yes, but when will they become S&M friendly, Swinger friendly, and Nudist friendly? My S&M Swinging Nudist friends still feel like second class citizens, and would like equal rights just like the rest of us.
Reply
MemphisNET 8:34AM (1/04/2008)
Little different. Not that there is anything wrong with the lifestyle in my view, but how can you claim your clique of however many people as co-dependants (family/spouse)
I think alot of the rules against unorthadox relationships is just that they are confused how to fairly respond to needs.
Shawn 9:08AM (1/04/2008)
Rocketboy, regardless of your sexuality, BMW cannot discriminate against you because you are into S&M, Swing or Nudism in your private time. As long as you do your job and follow common work place policies. None of those things are illegal.
Let see if AFA takes on BMW.
Rocketboy 10:17AM (1/04/2008)
Memphis... if my S&M, Swinging, Nudist friends all live together, wouldn't that qualify them for family benefits? At the very least, the Masters should be able to claim their Slaves as dependents... Not to mention that the only 'rules' against unorthodox relationships are (for the most part) social mores, and not legal.
Shaun... Nor could they discriminate against gay couples.
That being said, my actual argument is that I don't care how you live your life. Nor do I care what you do in the bedroom. But if gay couples can receive spousal benefits, can any two co-habiting adults receive spousal benefits?
DKB_SATX 11:21AM (1/04/2008)
Rocketboy: Nothing prevents a "cohabiting" heterosexual couple from getting married. Since I don't live in MA, I can't legally marry my partner, but it's nice that my employer offers me the opportunity to cover him on my health insurance now that he's in med school and no longer has coverage through his own work. It sucks a little that the feds TAX the amount of money my company pays for his health insurance as income to me, and forces them to take my contribution for his coverage out POST-tax, unlike their treatment of family health insurance for married couples, but that's not my employer's fault.
Rocketboy 12:38PM (1/04/2008)
DKB.. Which is why I am in full support of two adults being able to enter in a a marriage-like financial contract. This would be useful for both same-sex couples, or even elderly blood-relatives that are living together. But to say that you "cannot" get married is an incorrect statment. You cannot get married to someone of the same sex, yes, just like you're not going to have much luck being a male Hooters waiter. Now to allow co-habitating benifits to same sex couples only, that's discrimination.
DKB_SATX 12:59PM (1/04/2008)
Rocketboy: You're willfully ignoring the constraints placed on these domestic-partner benefits programs. In order to qualify for it for my company, we had to show that we'd been living together on a long-term basis, that we had joint financial arrangements (primary beneficiary of each others' life insurance policies, wills, etc.; joint checking accounts) and I had to sign an affidavit on which misrepresenting the situation is a termination offense.
I don't have any objection to heterosexual couples being able to get the same benefits if they offer the same proof. In fact, I think that all marriages should be treated by the government as civil unions, the religious aspects of marriage being an issue for the church, not the state. That would result in the tax treatment for my partner's benefits being the same as for a heterosexual with similar benefits, and be completely fair.
As to your nitpicking about whether or not I can "get married", if you'd bothered to read my statement, I said I can't legally marry MY PARTNER. We've been together 9 years now, I'm not going to suddenly abandon the most important relationship of my adult life to to marry a woman I don't love so that we fit into your definition of what constitutes a family.
Rocketboy 1:48PM (1/04/2008)
Calm down. "You're willfully ignoring the constraints placed on these domestic-partner benefits programs" Am I? I don't work where you work. You'll have to forgive my ignorance of your work's policies. And they SHOULD open up the policy for different-sex couples. Also, you just made a large portion of my argument. I'm FOR "Civil Unions". I'm not FOR changing the description of what constitutes a Marriage. Freakin relax. We actually agree on most of the points.
SOhp101 5:18PM (1/04/2008)
Way to turn your argument into a slippery slope.
There's plenty of reasons why your "sexual arrangements" aren't the same as a long term relationship between two people of the same sex, but no point in arguing this in an automotive blog. In short, having sex isn't the only qualification for obtaining benefits for your significant other, so your point is moot.
Good for BMW for finally offering this, Honda/Acura needs to be next.
Steve_S 8:49AM (1/04/2008)
Shoo, I was holding out but now that gaywheels.com endorses BMW I guess I can get that M3 or 135, convertible of course.
Reply
psarhjinian 11:13AM (1/04/2008)
It's funny you say that, because I used to go to a restaurant (in a predominantly gay area) that served a BLT with gruyere cheese for just that reason.
Maestro1 8:50AM (1/04/2008)
I just figured if you liked a car you researched the car then went out and bought it, not that you'd consult a website about whether its automaker's policies meshed with ur lifestyle?
Reply
jmstro04 10:32AM (1/04/2008)
It's not about it meshing with your lifestyle, and not everyone looks at it first or doesn't agree to buy it because of the fact... but it IS about knowing if the company has fair rules for its gay employees.
Rocketboy 12:40PM (1/04/2008)
You mean special/extra rules for gay employees.
Drew 1:08PM (1/04/2008)
you mean sexuality neutral rules.
Kaptain75329 1:18PM (1/04/2008)
Maestro1 - you mean like advocating the purchase of substantially inferior American cars for political reasons?
No says BMW nor anyone else MUST be "gay friendly".. but homosexuals get to vote with their dollars same as anyone else, and they can refuse to support anyone who doesn't support their values. Fair's fair.