Rocky’s recent heretical executive order providing domestic-partner benefits (which happen to include gay couples) did nothing more than to make city employment benefits competitive with most of the fortune 500 companies.
The City Council ordinance passed last night was nothing but a waste of energy to light and heat the meeting room. That’s probably why Rocky didn’t bother to show up.
It simply won’t fly. Ask any health insurance professional. But the City Council knew that, unless they didn’t, which means no one is doing their homework.
That must be what Tribune Reporter, Heather May means by calling it “historicâ€
“There was no celebration. No gay-rights advocates or employees lined up to applaud the Salt Lake City Council vote Tuesday night. But the council’s decision on health benefits was historic nonetheless.â€
Yep, “historic” because it became history the second it passed because PEHP won’t do it, and even if they could (which they can’t), Rep. LaVar Christensen’s HB 327 forbidding cities from subsidizing insurance for anyone other than employees’ spouses or children will kill it.
So why did they do it?
Multiple Choice…
a. To dissuade gay people from working for the city?
b. To send a clear message that gay couples shan’t be treated equally in Utah?
c. Because they can’t stand to let Rocky do anything that pleases people who voted for him?
d. To further embarrass us and themselves?
e. All of the above?
f. Other ________________?
#1 by cornereddog - February 8th, 2006 at 19:05
f. All of the above plus a few more I can’t think of right now.
#2 by Ethan - February 8th, 2006 at 19:19
f. None of the above
#3 by cornereddog - February 8th, 2006 at 20:52
homophobe
#4 by Ken Bingham - February 8th, 2006 at 21:53
There is a difference between private companies offering “domestic partner” benifits and the government offering them. The big destinction is that everyone has the choice whether to do business with a private company, they do not have a choice to pay taxes. Someone who finds homosexuality abhorent should not be forced to pay for the benifits of those who engage in that lifestyle. It is the same reason we must not allow tax payer funding for abortions.
If private companies were not spending the billions of dollars required to pay for domestic partner benifits they would not have to cut the benifits for other workers. We all pay big time for these added benifits through higher prices for products. If we offer them to government workers as well then we will also have to pay higher taxes.
#5 by Annette Daley - February 8th, 2006 at 22:11
I am almost too disgusted to reply, given Ken’s interesting analogy.
It is unfortunate that even in the reddest and most conservative of states, we continue to discriminate against individuals for their sexual orientation.
That is unconscionable.
#6 by Surrogate - February 8th, 2006 at 22:29
My dear friend,
I feel disappointed because like Rocky said, what the council did is moving
away of the real issue: gay rights. I truly believe that health benefits or
insurance coverage should be extended to all; this was an issue of fairness
toward the LGBT community.
It’s sad the kind of steps we are taking in Utah due to our political climate, but my city and my mayor should be able to establish policies, ordinances, and regulation that follow the law, but also the will of our community, not Kanab’s or Orem’s.
Peace
Afraid to speak out
#7 by Surrogate - February 8th, 2006 at 22:30
Jill has no vision and is really quite “blank” in my opinion - Soren is the new lone progressive and won’t make waves this early, I don’t think.
Backbone - from the Council?????? Helloooooo
Also Afraid
#8 by Cliff Lyon - February 8th, 2006 at 23:12
I am saddened and crying because my friends are reluctant to post their true thoughts. Being so close to the situation and with professional relationships with city council members, they cannot afford the possible fallout.
They all need their jobs.
Jill and Soren,
Your friends will not speak freely to you because your failure to reflect or consult with them and constituents has frightened them.
What really have you done? Have you been franchised? Are you listening to a vocal minority? Have you sold out to Jergenson and Buhler?
Are you unaware that your actions are seen as direct affront to gay rights? Are you under a spell? Has the power ripped your very soul from you?
This is about gay rights, nothing else. If I am wrong, please produce one insurance industry professional who will stand behind your plan as doable.
You can’t, because it is not doable and if you think it is, someone has lied to you, which suggest naiveté or incompetence.
Personally, I believe neither. I believe you will stand on principle, and reverse your untenable position, or explain to us something we apparently do not understand and that you have failed to explain heretofore.
You are public servants now, elected to stand for the principles that you held out to the voters, NOT to compromise for some short-term political expediency.
Should any of you make a decision because you “have to sit next to himâ€, we implore you to reconsider your suitability to serve in the public’s best interest.
I offer you this venue to respond (top post or comment) or I will ask you to help me understand next Tuesday.
But I am sickened by all the emails from people who cannot for whatever reason, express their thoughts on this subject publicly.
No more free rides.
#9 by WWIIVet - February 8th, 2006 at 23:38
Ken,
“Someone who finds homosexuality abhorrent” as you say is talking about sex I assume. Certainly you have no problem with same sex love, as you love your male friends and your wife her female friends, as long as there is not sex involved.
So I can only imagine you ARE talking about sex. As beautiful as your family is, I must tell you with all respect; the idea of you having sex with your wife is abhorrent to me, as is the idea of my own parents having sex, not to mention the unthinkable,… my grandparents having sex.
Come to think of it, I don’t much like the idea of ANYONE having sex but me. That is why its best if we don’t think about other people having sex. Its inappropriate, voyeuristic, and frankly, as you say “abhorrentâ€.
So what you are saying is, we should not use taxpayer money to provide benefits for people whose sex life is abhorrent?
Well, that pretty much leaves you and me out of the picture unless you or I are calling the shots for a private company. Then we can make an exception. But just for me, not you. You having sex is still abhorrent to me.
Hot’n Sweaty Lover
#10 by Franci - February 9th, 2006 at 07:29
Replying regarding the comment posted at 10:29 pm.
Cliff, you should’ve gave me more credit, and not afraid to speak out.
It was late all right
#11 by Deanna - February 9th, 2006 at 09:29
This is more in response to Ken’s reply.
I morally do not believe in war, yet my taxes go to pay for them, because I “do not have a choice”.
Where is the equity?
Our taxes should go to provide ALL basic needs for ALL people - regardless of their values or who they live with. It is not the government’s business to decide who gets what benefits. I expect my tax dollars to be used for human needs. Not violence, greed, or for the select few who meet the criteria of values of a certain set of people.
Domestic partner benefits should be paid. Even those heterosexual couples who do not “legally” marry are eligible for benefits after a certain specified amount of time living together.
#12 by Nephi - February 9th, 2006 at 11:24
Ken argues that “[s]omeone who finds homosexuality abhorent should not be forced to pay for the benifits of those who engage in that lifestyle.” I find Bush’s war in Iraq abhorent. According to Ken, then, I should not be forced to pay for the weapons used by Bush and his cronies to engage an enemy that is, at best, illusory.
#13 by Cliff Lyon - February 9th, 2006 at 11:55
Francisca (May I tell your last name?)
I’m terribly sorry you thought the “Afraid to speak out” comment was directed toward you. That idea is nothing short of INSANITY!
You ARE THE LAST PERSON that could be accused of being afraid to speak out. There is NO ONE behind you in that line.
I was not only projecting my own trepidation to express the full force of my outrage, but that of so many others. If anyone around here is afraid to speak out, it is I.
You are by far the most FEARLESS, energetic, and committed activist in this town and probably just about anywhere on the planet. THAT is undisputed. NO ONE can “hold a candle to you” in terms of selfless contribution to justice and democracy.
Personally, I am humbled if not embarrassed by my inability to keep up with you.
To suggest that you are afraid to speak could only be interpreted as a joke; pure sarcasm, and anyone who would suggest otherwise is either a fool, or doesn’t know you. I would go to the wall to defend my absolute conviction that you exemplify by your actions, the very highest standard of the responsibility inherent in being a participant in our system of democracy.
When JFK said “Ask not…” he was describing an ideal far short of what you have accomplished.
I’m gushing, I know, but I could go on. You are simply the best! And I am proud and honored to be counted among your friends.
I beg your forgiveness.
Love, Cliff
#14 by Ken Bingham - February 9th, 2006 at 19:56
There is a difference between the government funding our armed forces and using it for national defense and spending money to provide benefits for same sex couples or anyone for that matter. The Constitution specifically mandates the government provide for our common defense. In fact, defense is the only thing in the Constitution that the government is specifically obligated to provide. Everything else is optional.
Any government expenditure should only be for those things that are of a common interest and cannot be provided adequately by the private sector. Anything beyond that is an abuse of power. We did not create our government as a means of distributing or redistributing wealth, or providing welfare checks or taking care of us in our retirement. Government is there to protect us against enemies’ foreign and domestic, and to administer the laws. Listen carefully to the oath of office of the President and most elected leaders. It sums up pretty well what their roles really are.
#15 by Deanna Taylor - February 9th, 2006 at 21:45
But we aren’t using our funds for “defense”. Look carefully. Our dollars are being spent for “offense”. There is no connection between Iraq and 9-1-1. Yet we aggressively and offensively invaded that country. We were not being attacked by Iraq.
#16 by Chris Johnson - February 10th, 2006 at 08:23
Why did they do it? I am unsure. I do know this; the City didn’t invite anyone to witness the dicussion and vote. This was a closed session of the City Council and for the Trib to print that “no gay rights advocates” in attendance is less than accurate reporting. At the exact same time, there were about 125 LGBT folks and Allies on the first floor of the City and County Building celebrating an art exhibit entitled “Love Makes A Family”. Ironic, isn’t it?
#17 by Nephi - February 10th, 2006 at 13:15
Thanks for the lesson in constitutional law, Ken. But I think if you go back and review the text of the 14th Amendment, you will find a clause speaking of equal protection under the laws. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander!
#18 by Charley Foster - February 11th, 2006 at 10:17
I don’t understand the attitude among some progressives that making a political statement is more important than being as inclusive as possible. Equal protection for me, but not for thee?
#19 by Ken Bingham - February 11th, 2006 at 17:54
Thanks for the English lesson. I will watch my grammar more closely.
Defense is not the only thing the government is allowed to fund. My point is that the Constitution specifically mandates the government provide for defense. Any other expenditure is optional. Obviously the government can fund anything our elected leaders choose to, but there is a cost to us all of us whenever they do.
Government does not have any money that we the people do not give it. It is by our blood, sweat, and toil that the government has anything. Therefore money the government receives should only be for those things that are of a common interest. You mentioned roads, and education? Both of these are a common interest. It could be argued that government should only fund education and not actually run the schools themselves, but no one with any sense believes that an educated public is not a common interest, whether they have children or not. The same can be said about a police force, and fire service. Even if we never personally use them ourselves we all benefit from them. However, when government goes beyond funding things that are of a common interest and awards money to narrow interests then it starts pitting one interest against another. One group is forced to pay for the benefits of another without a corresponding benefit of their own. This imbalance causes resentment and rightfully so. It is the theft of one man or group to give to another.
Homosexuality does not benefit society the same as heterosexual families do. There is a common interest in raising the next generation. That is why we have marriage in the first place. Without children the government really has no compelling interest in getting involved in any relationship. It does not mean that childless couples are meaningless, or that only those with children can be married, it just means that the public does not hold the same amount of interest in their relationship as they do children.
#20 by Graduate Farmdog - February 13th, 2006 at 18:29
Ken, your post is flawed. Your argument appears to suggest that marriage is a prerequisite to having children (or at least in satisfying the common interest in raising the next generation). This is nonsense. Where does it say that only married folks can accomplish this common interest?
#21 by Joe Somebody - May 16th, 2007 at 19:46
#22 by Joe Somebody - May 16th, 2007 at 19:47
Worth Reading:
#23 by Greg The Democrat - October 16th, 2008 at 10:36
I don’t understand how Mormons can be Republicians The claim to have freedom of choice that is the basis of there religion Republicians don’t give you freedom of choice they stick to what they believe the bible says (There own Opinions) Also John McCains mother bad mouth the mormon when Romney was running. Here are some other things you should think about.
This adds some “straight talk” to what you may have read before…
I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
* If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you’re a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local sports reporter, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you’re very responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s.
* If you’re husband is nicknamed “First Dude”, with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.