What would be the financial implications of offering domestic partner benefits to state employees 1 in New Hampshire? Recent scholarly research and information from government agencies lead to the following findings:

1. Health insurance benefits are an important form of compensation, and employers are important sources of health care coverage.

2. Employers are increasingly offering the same health care benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees as are offered to spouses of employees.

3. Health care costs for the State and local employers would increase by a small amount.

4. Some of the added cost to the State will be offset by lower spending on Medicaid and uncompensated health care, and by lower training and recruitment costs.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has expanded its scope of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to allow employees to be allowed unpaid leave to care for the children of unmarried same-sex partners, but does not extend this unpaid leave to care for ill unmarried same-sex partners.

Williams Institute Research Director Lee Badgett's written testimony delivered to the Congressional Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia on HR 2517: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligation Act of 2009. If passed, the legislation would extend federal employee benefits to domestic partners of federal workers.

As a result of the passage of the Domestic Partnership Act of 2004, counties in New Jersey have the option of extending spousal pension benefits to domestic partners of county employees, just as the state does. One common question related to these benefits concerns their cost to the county, in this case to Ocean County. Based on the current structure of the pension plans that Ocean County employees belong to, and based on data from the State, I estimate that the cost to the county would be less than $70,000 per year. Below I outline the details of how I arrived at this calculation.

Including employees’ domestic partners in public employers’ health care and other benefits will have positive effects on state and local government employers in Alaska. The possibility of cost increases is usually high on the list of concerns, although a great deal of evidence suggests that cost increases will be small (Ash and Badgett, 2005; Badgett, 2000; Badgett, 2001; Badgett and Sears, 2005; Kohn 1999; International Society of Certified Employee Benefits Specialists, 1995). Just as important are the benefits that the State of Alaska will see if public employees’ partners are eligible for benefits.

This study estimates the potential economic impact of samesex weddings on the State of New Jersey and concludes that the gain would be substantial. If New Jersey were to give same-sex couples the right to marry, that is marriage itself and not civil unions, the State would likely experience a surge in spending on weddings by same-sex couples who currently live in New Jersey, as well as an increase in wedding and tourist spending by same-sex couples from other states. The analysis outlined in detail below predicts that sales by New Jersey’s wedding and tourism-related businesses would rise by $102.5 million in each of the first three years when marriage for same-sex couples is legal. As a result, the State’s gross receipt tax revenues would rise by $7.2 million per year.

In this report, we will detail how employees with partners now pay on average $1,069 per year more in taxes than would a married employee with the same coverage. Collectively, unmarried couples lose $178 million per year to additional taxes. U.S. employers also pay a total of $57 million per year in additional payroll taxes because of this unequal tax treatment. Because the number of unmarried couples is growing, over time this unfair treatment will affect millions of families.