Unintended consequences?

Now that same-sex marriage is the law in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe, among other employers, are reconsidering benefits for "domestic partners".

A memo sent to the Globe’s Boston Newspaper Guild members, and obtained by the Herald, states that Massachusetts gay Guild employees can extend their benefits to their partners only if they marry.

An employee who currently covers a same-sex domestic partner as a dependent will have to marry his or her partner by Jan. 1 for the employee benefits coverage to continue at the employee rates

the memo states.

I wonder. Will there be lots of people going ahead and marrying to keep their benefits, or will we see a storm of protest because they're being forced into it?

(Hat tip: John Ray).