United FCU began offering domestic partner benefits about two years ago to all of its 520 employees across six states including in Ohio and Arkansas, which didn't recognize same sex marriage.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act law, which under federal law defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

That ruling made it legal for same-sex couples to receive the same healthcare, retirement and other benefits as opposite-sex couples in the workplace. Nevertheless, for states that didn't recognize same-sex marriage, the DOMA decision didn't answer how states should administer benefits for same-sex couples.

After initiating a program that helped streamline its overall costs of employee benefits, Swigert said United FCU was able to expand domestic partner coverage.

"We really felt the domestic partner benefit was something we could offer people that would really be meaningful and was not being offered by everyone," Swigert said. "We could certainly distinguish ourselves as an employer and help attract top talent."

Paris Chevalier, chief marketing officer for the $933 million Xceed Financial Credit Union in El Segundo, Calif., agreed.

"We've always been proud of our progressive and generous approach to associate benefits, and believe it's a real competitive advantage for us in attracting and retaining top quality talent," Chevalier said.

Xceed Financial wasn't surprised by the Supreme Court ruling.

"At Xceed Financial, we think it just makes sense to offer an equitable benefits structure to all associates, and we've done so for quite some time," she said. "The Supreme Court ruling won't change or impact associates' benefits in any way at Xceed Financial, because our associate benefits are already structured to allow for insurance coverage and leaves of absence for same-sex couples."

The $2.8 billion Northwest Federal Credit Union in Herndon, Va., extended full benefits to same-sex married couples two years ago.

"We appreciate this has been a divisive issue across the country, but we are also glad that the Supreme Court has finally settled the issue so that we and others can go about our business of concentrating on our members and helping our members become financially strong and helping our communities become financially strong," Maritza DiSciullo, senior vice president of enterprise marketing at Northwest FCU. "Strong, bonded households create strong bonded communities."

What's more, the executives indicated that the Supreme Court ruling aligns with the industry's cooperative philosophy.

"Look at what CU means. CU is about community. It's about inclusiveness by definition. It's grass roots. It's everybody for everybody else. It is cooperative," Swigert said. "If we are a cooperative of people helping people then that is what we need to be."

Nevertheless, the controversial ruling is expected to lead to more court battles by faith-based organizations that will argue for a religious exemption, according to legal experts.

That's because organizations that buy group insurance to provide healthcare benefits will find it difficult to amend a healthcare plan to limit spousal eligibility to opposite-sex partners.

Mark Holloway, senior vice president and co-director of compliance services for the Kansas City,-Mo.-based Lockton Benefits Group, said most insurance contracts state that coverage is available to the employee's legal spouse, and that is now going to include same-sex spouses in all states.

Holloway said insurance companies are not going to change their contracts to accommodate organizations that don't want to provide coverage to same-sex couples.

However, some states allow what Holloway called a "conscious clause" that allows organizations with sincerely held religious beliefs to opt out. In addition, organizations that self-insure their healthcare plans could limit coverage to opposite-sex partners, according to Lockton Benefits Group.

CU Times reached out to a few faith-based credit unions but none of them responded to requests seeking comments about the Supreme Court ruling.

Current federal nondiscrimination employment laws, however, don't protect gay employees even though some states do prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.

"While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can't assail an employer for discriminating against an employee based on sexual orientation, it can challenge employers for gender bias," according to a Lockton Benefits Group report. "It's likely just a matter of time until we see a groundswell of gender bias claims against employers who deny health coverage to same-sex spouses solely on account of the employee's gender, i.e., that the employee's gender is the same as the spouse's gender."

Legal experts anticipate that lawsuits may be filed in one of these 13 states that did not recognize same-sex marriage: Michigan, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota.