So how is this NOT discrimination?

When a company (not just "a" company,, but GOOGLE of all companies) decides to say that your sexual orientation means you deserve more money?

A Silicon Valley company famous, in part, for offering outrageously good benefits is straightening out a disparity among their employees.

First and foremost... the disparity is.. that what?  They make the same amount of money?   No, the disparity is in the following paragraph:

Starting Thursday, Google will adjust paychecks for its gay and lesbian employees who opt for domestic partner benefits to cover for a tax those employees have to pay, the New York Times reports.

 Wait?  You mean the US govt taxes homoseuals, but not heterosexuals?   Ehh.. .try again!    (as you'll see further on)

As it is now, Mountain View-based Google offers benefits to the spouses or partners of both straight and gay employees. However, the married straight employees don't get taxed on those extra benefits -- but the gay employees do as part of the federal laws.

No problem with the first statement.. but the second is an issue, because there is a third group...  what about Heterosexual couples who decide NOT to get married (for whatever reason), and go with the civil-union/common law marriage route.  Now you're discriminating against a different lifestyle are you not?

The pay raise will be retroactive to the beginning of 2010 and will apply only to employees in the U.S. Heterosexual employees with long-term partners won't see the pay adjustment, because they could marry and therefore get the tax break if they wished

How is this not reverse discrimination?    Someone else is being rewarded because they can't do something you "could" do.. (not because you did/didn't do it)

Google is not the first company to make such a move on behalf of their gay employees, the Times points out,  but experts say it could inspire other Silicon Valley firms to follow suit.

Okay, so now your benefits are to be defined because of what you "could" do, and not what you "do" do?   Talk about Insurance companies being able to turn this around...  Insurance companies raise your rates  because you "could" have a child.  Because you "Could" have a plastic surgery job done... because you "could"... 

All I can say is this "could" become a major disaster for these companies (if Insurance companies ever catch on.. cause there's no telling what they "Could" do.)