You have not shown where the company changed policy solely based on the matter of same sex/gay marriage, this appears to be simply a change in their business policies. And I am more than willing to bet there were more heterosexual marriages at that company than same sex partners which means yea the insurance company was losing money on the amount of policies they could underwrite. And as you said "for decades" that is how their business was done - perhaps it was not economically feasible for said insurance company to underwrite the number of policies in that same manner...and I HIGHLY doubt that insurance company said to hell with the heterosexual marriages - we are going to mess over them and create this provision for same sex partners. Their business decision might have created that byproduct but again I would doubt that was their sole mission.
So bottom line - did the company say this was done to accomodate same sex/gay marriages
or was this just an across the board change in the way they did business after DECADES of doing business another way?
So bottom line - did the company say this was done to accomodate same sex/gay marriages
or was this just an across the board change in the way they did business after DECADES of doing business another way?
Last edited: