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]
CAR reveals spy shots of McLaren P11 supercar
2010 Chevrolet Camaro priced: LS $22,995, SS $30,995
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
In the Autobog Garage: 2009 Chevy Cobalt SS Turbo
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
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
AlexP @ Mar 10th 2008 7:03PM
A perfectly legit move, however late it is.
Regardless of one's gender, a couple is a couple, that is all.
AlexP @ Mar 10th 2008 8:00PM
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.
Reader @ Mar 10th 2008 9:02PM
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.
Student Driver @ Mar 10th 2008 10:54PM
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.
AlexP @ Mar 10th 2008 11:15PM
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.
kal326 @ Mar 11th 2008 2:04PM
Well the problem appears to be that there is a separation of church and state, but the problem seems to be in the church influence over the members of the state.
In the bible belt you could almost have a campaign of "a vote for me is a vote for jesus!" and get elected regardless of your competency or political objectives.
thedude3389 @ Mar 11th 2008 4:40PM
AlexP, i agree with you 100000%. A couple is a couple. Everyone deserves to be happy. Period.
jon igielnik @ Mar 10th 2008 7:09PM
its funny, i had no idea that honda was considered not "gay friendly" i always figured their eco friendly/ family friendly and overall "good guy" company style would sway well with the mostly liberal gay community. then again, im not gay, so i cant say too much on how someone with that persuasion would view the company, except to say that if they dont treat gays equally, they wouldnt probably like it (being jewish, i would not like it if a company didnt give jews full insurance beneits). however, i do like that they are starting give GLBT people the equal rights they deserve in the workplace, its a step in the right direction, and i think that companies out there that are intolerant to any people of any race, gender, religion or sexual preference should take a hint from honda and get on the right path
zamafir @ Mar 10th 2008 7:27PM
Well, given the 35 car companies that already are gay friendly, and that honda is one of only five left which arent, i think honda's getting a hint from everyone else :).
psarhjinian @ Mar 10th 2008 9:18PM
I think it's more of a money thing than an anti-gay thing. I suspect someone in HR never got the memo from PR about revising the benefits package, or someone from Finance decided that they'd like to keep employee costs below an arbitrary percentage.
Sometimes it's racism/sexism/agism, sometimes (and this is usually the case in current times) it just costs money that accountants** would rather not spend.
All that said, shame on Honda for dragging their feet. They're a small company and they can't play the "pull the tail on the dinosaur" card that, say, GM could. One the other hand, I think it's funny that sloping-forehead gay bashers find that the only truck they can buy is the Honda Ridgeline.
** (on a personal note, I was actually party to a discussion where someone from F&A seriously wanted to end spousal benefits for everyone, straight or gay, as a way to meet both equality regulations and budget)
Lemmiwinks @ Mar 10th 2008 7:14PM
+2 Andross polygons for Honda.
The Luigiian @ Mar 10th 2008 9:09PM
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...
Lemmiwinks @ Mar 10th 2008 9:46PM
"ribbidit ribbidit"
...alls I know is that Colonel Pepper sure does look like he spends his weekends in leather-daddy attire...
joe @ Mar 10th 2008 7:27PM
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.
hydrogenvodka @ Mar 10th 2008 7:40PM
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.
Judy Zik @ Mar 10th 2008 8:49PM
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).
rogersmj @ Mar 11th 2008 11:41AM
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.
zamafir @ Mar 10th 2008 7:31PM
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.
joe @ Mar 10th 2008 7:40PM
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.
DetroitWhat @ Mar 10th 2008 7:34PM
For how "progressive" Honda may seem to be, this is a big surprise! Talking about living in the dark ages!