Rick Weaver in the Detroit Diversity Examiner has a story titled "Google gives raise to gay and lesbian employees, now paid more than heterosexual employees".
http://www.examiner.com/x-47257-Detroit-Diversity-Examiner~y2010m7d2-Google-gives-raise-to-gay-and-lesbian-employees-now-paid-more-than-heterosexual-employees

Note that the publication's title, "Detroit Diversity Examiner", may indicate they have an agenda. According to that story, in Michigan Google's pay discriminates on sexual orientation. Unmarried homosexual couples are paid more than unmarried heterosexual couples. Apparently single, married and polygamous employees also receive the lower pay. I wonder if both homosexual partners receive the higher pay if they both work for Google?

Apparently in Michigan Google provides tax exempt health care benefits to spouses. It seems they also provide the benefit to employees with unmarried partners, but it is taxable. As I understand the story, the rationale for the extra pay is that it may offset the extra tax, but it is only paid to those with homosexual partners. Presumably single employees receive neither the benefit nor the extra pay.

i guess this is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences.

if you , as a government, are going to favour certain segments of society via tax policy, companies like Google will find a way around it , so that all of their employees are treated equally.

On the other hand, theres a part of me that finds Google encroaching into employees private lives very Big Brotherish and smacks of social engineering. Google had better be very careful encroaching into this territory – devout Muslims or Christians in their organisation could have valid reasons to shout "discrimination".

In other words – its a bag of worms, that Google should really avoid.

for the record, i'm libertarian and in favour of a flat tax system.

no tax relief on anything – and you fill in your tax return on the back of a postcard. that system avoids all of this conflict in the first place.

The New York Times has more details.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/your-money/01benefits.html?_r=3&ref=business

"Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent. The tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer."

"The extra compensation to cover the domestic partner tax will apply only to same-sex domestic partners, Mr. Bock said, because heterosexual couples can avoid the added tax by marrying."

"The additional pay will also cover the dependents of the employee’s domestic partner. The changes will be retroactive to Jan. 1, and will apply only to workers in the United States."

"On the other hand, theres a part of me that finds Google encroaching into employees private lives very Big Brotherish and smacks of social engineering."

How is this Social Engineering? The only thing I see is there is now an "incentive" to come out of the closet.