that's not a good assumption because very few states recognize civil unions/gay marriages.
I don't see the big deal here. Ultimately it's the employees who are going to be paying for the cost of that coverage. If they want to pay to insure someone who they are not in a legally binding relationship with, opposite sex or same sex, then that's fine by me. Those employees would be wise to keep in mind though that while their relationship with said partner is not binding their committment to pay those insurance premiums for the remainder of that enrollment period is. Sure would suck to add your girlfriend/boyfriend to your insurance only to break up a month later and then be stuck paying for their insurance for the rest of the year.