• Mar 10, 2008
Most car brands that sell in the U.S. are defined as gay-friendly by the website Gaywheels.com. Only five are not, and one of them is Honda. The Japanese automaker took a step towards moving into the majority recently when it decided to begin offering insurance benefits to same-sex partners at some of its U.S. operations, which include the headquarters at American Honda Motor Co. Inc., the R&D facility in Torrance, CA.; its manufacturing facility in Lincoln, AL; and Honda Power Equipment Manufacturing Inc. in Swepsonville, NC.
While this decision is a step forward for Honda, it's not a big enough step to change its status in the eyes of the editors at Gaywheels.com. While the website applauds the move, a company must offer insurance benefits for same-sex couples to all of its employees before it can move onto the list of Gay Friendly carmakers. Honda, however, says it will be offering these benefits to all of its gay and lesbian employees in the next 12 to 24 months. Apparently its corporate structure is too complicated to do it all at once.

NOTE:
Regardless of your views on homosexuality, please be civil in the comments or else your comment will be deleted and you will immediately be banned from commenting on Autoblog in the future. Thanks!

[Source: Automotive News via Gaywheels.com]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 57 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      It's why gay marriage should be legalized. It will then get rid of the partner benefits and tell gay people to get off the pot and either get married or shut the heck up. One thing you will find is that many gays WILL not get married because many gay relationships are fleeting.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Yes unlike heterosexual couples whose relationships are not fleeting. Elliot Spitzer, bless his soul, gets pillaried for going to a prostitute. And the only reason is that he got caught. If we had half a clue how to deal with reality and sex in this country, it would not have even been news.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Fleeting? What's that I here of the 50% divorce rate for heterosexuals?
        • 6 Years Ago
        That's right, they are "fleeting".Usually when one of the partners finally discovers that they're in a co-dependent relationship that usually ends it.
      • 6 Years Ago
      So, in order to be covered by your spouse/partner's insurance, you would rather have them be REQUIRED to have children? Seriously? If you want glasses, a trip to the doctor, or to have your teeth cleaned you’d force people to adopt/make kids? Wow.
        • 6 Years Ago
        ah....so that's what "insurance benefits" means covering the other guy/girl. In that sense, I am not against that. I was referring to the price/cost of buying that insurance. i was under the impression that the couples got cheaper insurance rates compared to the singles.



          • 6 Years Ago
          If you're buying it yourself, sure. But whenever we're discussing companies and benefits we're discussing the ability of the employee to share their benefits, bestowed by the company, on their partner/spouse, as most are used to. That way, if your wife or if you're female partner, looses their job, they're not without insurance - because they're covered under your policy.
      • 6 Years Ago
      +2 Andross polygons for Honda.
        • 6 Years Ago
        "ribbidit ribbidit"

        ...alls I know is that Colonel Pepper sure does look like he spends his weekends in leather-daddy attire...
        • 6 Years Ago
        Considering the fact that we are dealing with gays and lesbians here, I think you should probably give Honda Slippy points.

        I know, I know, stereotypes, all that. All I'm saying is, there was something about that toad...
      • 6 Years Ago
      so why do couples get insurance benefits anyway?

      shouldn't it be only for those who have kids to take care of?

      now im not against companies offering health/home/car/life/etc. insurance plans to employees, but it seems discriminatory when couples get a better deal simply because they are couples.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Wow, joe. That was pretty dumb. Couples don't get *better* deals at all. When I got married, my insurance premiums went way up (more than doubled), because they had to cover more than just me. What makes you think we're getting discounts or a better deal than single people? In fact, when my wife starts her job, we'll probably have her use her own insurance, because it will cheaper than having her as a spouse on mine.
        • 6 Years Ago
        That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time and trust me I read a lot. So you would have wives not covered by their husband's insurance unless they produce kids? How about when the kids move out should the wife be cut off of insurance? How stupid is that? The reality is that even couples with two incomes normally choose whoever has the better coverage and cover everyone under it. Until recently my husband was covered under my insurance but I got out of the rat race for a while so soon I will be under his coverage.

        Personally I think you should be able to cover anyone in your household under your insurance. With working families looking after parents and grandparents in some cases the definition of dependent really needs to be updated.

        Either way discrimination is wrong in any form. It's about time Honda woke up. Pretty shameful that they had to be one of the last 3 companies (since Hyundai/Kia are really one as are Honda/Acura).
        • 6 Years Ago
        Not as much as "just for being couples"
        It's a statistical fact, more specifically a "strongly correlated characteristic" with driving adequately. When you are an established adult, with a couple, you care less about speed and more about safety and economy, rather than speed and alcohol when being a teenager or a bachelor.
      • 6 Years Ago
      "The Japanese automaker took a step towards moving into the majority recently when it decided to begin offering insurance benefits to same-sex partners at some of its U.S. operations"

      So if your partner is the opposite sex, he/she is not covered. That's special rights for gays, and that is wrong.
        • 6 Years Ago
        That's a pretty good cast PapaWhiskey but I don't think the fish will be biting today...
        • 6 Years Ago
        PapaWhiskey,

        If your 'partner' is of the opposite sex, you are perfectly entitled to marry that individual as legal evidence of a committed relationship. Since gays and lesbians do not have that option, it's not 'special' rights--it's trying to equalize the playing field. Now, if you'd like to allow us to marry in all fifty states, I'd agree that offering same-sex-only partner benefits would be discriminatory.
        • 6 Years Ago
        [sarcasm]
        Psch Vik, don't you know that NOT allowing 'gays' to marry doesn't qualify any special treatment for heterosexual couples... it's just 'normal'. So allowing 'gays' equal rights automatically qualifies as special treatment.
        [/sarcasm]
        We heard the same things in the 60s and 70s. Sadly, even with Strom Thurmond's death, Segregationist views still live on strong in this country - though it's most fashionable to be bigoted towards the lgbt miority today.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Not special treatment. In every situation where rights have been extended to unmarried same sex couples, unmarried opposite sex couples are extended the same rights if they are coupled, married or not. It is not just right, it is an open invitation to a lawsuit if they are not covered by the same sex benefit.
        • 6 Years Ago
        If your partner is of the opposite sex, you can get married. That's a special right for straight people, and it's wrong.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I will bite. PapaWhiskey- GLBT couples CANNOT legally marry in all states, hence the coverage for same sex partners. Please respond- I'd love to hear it.
        • 6 Years Ago
        It's called Marriage!
        • 6 Years Ago
        Nope, PapaWhiskey, you are 100% wrong. Honda already provides insurance to 'traditional' married couples. This is an extension to same-sex couples in addition to what they are already providing for everyone else.

        This is the same sort of argument that is made against gay couples all the time. I don't know of anyone out there who is asking for special rights. They only want to be treated equally -- not better.

        Please do a little homework next time before passing judgmental statements? Thanks.
      • 6 Years Ago
      As a 3 time Honda/Acura owner and a life long fan, I'm surprised they were behind the curve on this. It's not about supporting some lifestyle or bringing 'bedroom' issues into the forefront, this is really about every one being treating equally and that's a good thing. People don't decide to be str8 or to be gay, they just are what they are, and you shouldn't lose things like insurance benefits for your significant other for that reason.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I've been with my partner for 22 years. Together we helped family members through college, buried my father and have made sure that my mother is able to enjoy the rest of her life without worrying about her future.

      I had a massive heart attack 6 years ago when I was still in my 30's. My partner's company had domestic partner benefits. Without them, my $259,000 medical bill would have taken a nasty swipe at the savings we had worked so hard to amass.

      Now I'm fine. And we're about to buy a Jaguar XF Premium Luxury! Woo Hoo! (well this is an auto site and not really a political diatrive forum)

      I guess that all I'm getting at is that equity as it pertains to individuals and couples commitment to society at large is what all of this is about. For a large portion of the population to be accomodated for a legal contract, while others are denied the same is simply wrong.

      Whatever my partnership has contributed to as
      taxpayers, employees and citizens, is at least equal to that made by most "sanctioned" couples.

      But most important, even more so than all of the politics is the way that freaking starter button in the XF pulses red, and the way the vents and shifter dial rotate and rise as the engine engages.

      Without our partner benefits, we'd be driving a Cobalt or Excel instead of a Jag!



      • 6 Years Ago
      Why is this even an issue? Are we also rating companies by how man friendly, women friendly, black friendly, elderly friendly, disabled friendly, fat friendly, Republican friendly, bipolar friendly, shy friendly, hypertension friendly they are? Bigots of any sort are stupid jerks who deserve pity. But come on. Last I checked this is 2008. It is time to move on, as most people know longer give a rats ass about what adult human another adult human chooses to zoom. Oh yes, there is still televangelist blather and edicts still bleating from pockets of deranged religiosity. Let the James Dobsons of the world get down on their knees and mumble at the sky and see how well that works. Meanwhile, buy Hondas or whatever. It's over.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I'm surprised Honda wasn't offering benefits to same-sex partners. I always thought it was one of those forward thinking compaines. Well, it's about time. Which 4 companies are left and why is my question?
        • 6 Years Ago
        According to GayWheels.com, the remaining non-gay-friendly companies are:

        Acura
        Honda
        Hyundai
        Kia
        Suzuki
      • 6 Years Ago
      Man i sure am glad all homosexuals have two jobs, and no kids... I'm just confused what we do with the 3,000,000 children in America to skew reality to your fantasy, and what kind of hiring incentives you plan to provide to all the non employed partners (again to make your fantasy world a reality)
      • 6 Years Ago
      Huh? The way I read the disclaimer, I'm perfectly within my right to express my negative view of homosexuality, as long as I do it in a reasonably civil way, so I think mk is being a bit too touchy.

      Not that I actually have a negative view of homosexuality but you catch my drift. In the same vein, I can say that religious people are utterly deluded but if I'd call them, say, "murderous f***ing, child molesters who should be tortured and burned alive for the good of humanity", I might get into trouble with the autoblog staff. Again, not my actual views at all.

      As an atheist, I'm perfectly willing to be civil in my criticism of religious people (but why would I need to discuss the matter on a car-website?) and bible-bashers should be civil in expressing they're views as well.

      One can be un-PC without being overtly rude. I quite like being rude but I have no problem with restraining myself here if the Autoblog staff wants me to. It's their site, not mine.
      • 6 Years Ago
      A perfectly legit move, however late it is.

      Regardless of one's gender, a couple is a couple, that is all.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Yeah I see what you mean, but people should be equal regardless of their sexual orientation, race, and so forth, provided they're actual CITIZENS.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Wow, seeing my rank jump from neutral to highly ranked and back to neutral because anti-gay people are raging over this is absurd.

        So much for "land of the free" and all that.
        • 6 Years Ago
        You claim land of the free then call it absurd that people have their own opinions? Not saying I agree or disagree, but that truly is absurd in my opinion.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Yeah, it's kind of strange. Personally, I thought of a marriage ceremony as mostly religious, but the whole license and legal status thing as 100% government. In that case, it seems like any consenting couple of legal age and status (you know, at least one is a US citizen and neither party could be considered livestock) should be entitled to it.

        I've seen plenty of straight people that should have never been allowed to be married, let alone breed, so the "law" seemed so far behind the times on this.
        • 6 Years Ago
        AlexP, i agree with you 100000%. A couple is a couple. Everyone deserves to be happy. Period.
    • Load More Comments