rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Nov 10, 2009 19:01:15 GMT -7
I'm wondering if the title I put on this thread is wrong... This is from the local paper
Opponents of city benefits for unmarried partners file petition asking for reversal
By Ramon Bracamontes / El Paso Times Posted: 11/10/2009 10:38:10 AM MST EL PASO
Opponents of the city's efforts to extend health and medical benefits to the same sex and unmarried partners of city employees filed a petition today asking for the decision to be revoked. The petition was filed with the city clerk with 4,293 signatures.
The petition was filed with the city clerk with 4,293 signatures. The petition is asking council to adopt a new resolution that limits medical benefits to the partners of married city employees. If council votes for the new ordinance, the old one would be revoked.
If the council does not adopt the new ordinance, the group plans on doing another petition to force a voter referendum on the issue.
On Aug. 25, City Council voted 7-1 to extend health and medical benefits to the same sex and unmarried partners of city employees. The plan provides gay couples - as well as unmarried heterosexual couples - the same benefits that married city employees have received for decades.
Though the move affects only 45 city employees, it sparked a heated citywide debate. Opponents say the move destroys traditional family values. Proponents say it is the right thing to do because some people choose not to get married and others can't by state law.
Read more on this story in Tuesday's El Paso Times.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Nov 10, 2009 21:42:30 GMT -7
Y'know, the main trouble I see with the current ordinance is the potential for fraud. What's to stop somebody from designating a friend as being a "partner" (of whichever gender). What's the definition of partner? What if someone says he/she has several partners and they all live together? Should they all get benefits?
|
|
|
Post by matthew on Nov 10, 2009 22:57:07 GMT -7
The policy specifically limits a partnership to two unrelated, unmarried adults. Also at least three of the following six conditions must be met, demonstrating a committed relationship: - A joint property deed or mortgage or leasehold interest in property - Sharing ownership of a vehicle - Having the same address on their driver's licenses - Having a joint checking or credit account - A designation of the other person as beneficiary of a life insurance policy or retirement benefits or primary beneficiary of a partner’s will - Assignment of a durable power of attorney or health care power of attorney.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Nov 11, 2009 6:25:59 GMT -7
but the potential for fraud is gonna exist either way--this would require fairly little oversight precisely because of the provisions Mattew points to
and a hetero couple, living together but legally unmarried for a specific pd. of time (I forget what it is right now...used to be two years) can already be considered "married" in Texas, so those bennies should be there w/o all of the extra hassle
in just this scenario, I know partners who were essentially married, nothing was in their names and the relationships lasted in excess of ten years BUT they were not "entitled" to any benefits....this is not right
the problem most people I know are having with this points to the inclusion of a specific group of people, and that gives me heartburn b'cause there is this implication that homosexuals are not/cannot be monogamous and/or involved in very long term relationships
I know this isn't the only reason for the opposition and that a lot of people oppose on religious or personal beliefs, but it really is time for us to reconsider where we are at if we want to hammer on the "it's not right" drum
|
|