Posted by
Brenda Bee on Friday, August 29, 2008 4:31:11 PM
I am so pleased with Senator
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate! I have been
watching the lady for some time now and like what she has done in
Alaska and like her views on most thing. If you are not familiar with
her Wikipedia has a very good bio on her.
There was only one decision that she made that really upset me greatly. i will just quote Wikipedia to save time here:
"She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[15] Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court[39] [40] She supported a non-binding referendum on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[41] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[42] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[15]
order and signed an implementation of same-sex benefits into law under
protest, stating that legal options to avoid doing so had run out.
Palin's first veto
was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from
granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect,
her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto
occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation."
***************************************************
When
the topic of providing health insurance benefits to gay or lesbian
partners has been cussed and discussed, the discussions always seem to
bog down in the side issues of right and wrong of homosexuality and
same-sex marriage, which have nothing to do with this particular issue.
The issue is: who should be allowed to be included on the employees
health insurance period; no emotional side issues.
Eligibility
for employee health care coverage has always been simple: the only
people eligible for coverage under the employees health insurance plan
is the employees immediate family. That is, wife or husband and
children to age 18 or 23 if in college. No aunts, uncles, cousins,
in-laws or parents because they are indeed family but not immediate
family. Neither may health benefits be extended to one who is not
related in any way to the employee.
Now our City Manager and
Mayor have opened this eligibility up to the "partners" of gay and
lesbian employees. Or, more accurately, to individuals not legally
related to the employee by blood or a legal contract. There is a little
clause thrown in to the city's agreement that the employee must sign
stating that the relationship is "a committed relationship" and "the
partners are financially co-dependent", but just as their sexual
relationship has no bearing on the real issue neither does their
commitment or financial co-dependency. No matter how "committed" or how
"financially co-dependent" the partners or live-in companions may be
they are still unrelated by the blood relationship of being siblings or
by the legally approved contract of marriage which are the only two
criteria that define "immediate family".
So what the two city
officials have done is open the city's obligation of employee health
insurance coverage to a non-family entity, and by implication to
virtually anyone the employee should wish to designate as a "dependent"
and willingly pay the employees share of the tax payer subsidized
health care insurance for that person. All of the named family members
listed above and including friends, neighbors and the man down the
block ! But the real kicker give away is that our Mayor under the City
Charter doesn't need any city councilman's approval because once the
budget is passed he can act on this on his own authority as mayor.
This
extended coverage is not a novel idea either in the country or in North
Carolina. Greensboro would be the second city in the state to establish
such a policy. Those living in the liberal thinking University bastions
of Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro were the first local governments to
do so. Durham County and Orange County have also extended benefits to
domestic partners. The legality of Chapel Hill and Carrboro's policies
have been challenged, but have been upheld by a superior court judge in
Orange County. The law has not been tested by a court with statewide
jurisdiction as of this writing.
The policies generally
allow employees to add unmarried partners and their children to
employer health plans and allow unmarried employees to take sick leave
to care for their partner or family members. In the case of Chapel
Hill, it is specified that the coverage is for both same-sex and
opposite-sex couples who live together in a relationship of indefinite
duration, have an exclusive mutual commitment to each other and can
demonstrate financial interdependence to qualify for the benefits.
Our
Mayor did not undertake this mission without asking some questions and
trying to get some clarification from the state for his proposal. His
first question concerned the North Carolina law banning co-habitation.
It was settled when a state court decision was made declaring North
Carolina's 201-year ban on cohabitation to be unconstitutional. Citing
a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law, State
Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford ruled that Debora Hobbs'
constitutional rights were violated when the 911 dispatcher was fired
from her job at the Pender County Sheriff's Office because she chose to
live with her boyfriend.
I have no idea what Texas law against
sodomy has to do with a man and a woman living together and presumably
having sex as normal men and women do, rather than the performance of
sodomy, has to do with couples in North Carolina co-habiting, but
apparently North Carolina State Supreme Court Judge Benjamin Alford
sees a connection. Go figure. I truly believe this ruling could
successfully be challenged if anyone cared to do so. The fact is in our
society today co-habitation without benefit of marriage is accepted so
this ruling is not likely to be challenged. But how our Mayor was able
to connect this ruling to extending Health Care insurance benefits to
co-habiting individuals is clearly baffling.
At any rate, our
Mayor's first concern was answered, but he first intended to only
extend the coverage to same sex couples since opposite sex couples
could get married and comply with the original provisions if they want
to. City Hall erupted like Mount St. Helena! And well it should have
because the plan was exclusionary. Which proves my point that once you
open the doors and dispense with the time honored two definitive
aspects of family then you have made any and all relationships equally
eligible.
Of course our Mayor being a careful fellow did ask the
State Attorney General's office, "Would it be a violation of equal
protection under the federal and state constitutions for the city of
Greensboro to choose to offer domestic partner health benefits to
same-sex couples while denying the benefit to unmarried opposite sex
couples." The North Carolina State Attorney General's Office refused to
offer any guidance on this subject.
So now we have breached
the only barriers and definitions of family health care coverage to
include persons and their children who are not related by blood or by
legal marriage contract to the employees. There is absolutely nothing
to stop the employee from placing anyone at all on his policy. He has
merely to pay the premium for them and this would show a financial
dependence. And if he continues this obligation of paying the premium
for anyone's insurance this would be all that was legally needed to
show a commitment.
As for the "live with" clause, well what does
"live with" really mean? in one space? or could paying as little as $1
a month on the rent and going over for dinner once a month qualify as
"living with" granny and pops? and why shouldn't an employee be able to
add a person and their children he/she is having a long term affair
with and can show commitment and financial dependency but does not
share the same space with? I think it is safe to say he/she certainly
"sleeps" with the person and could eat in their residence and could pay
that $1 per month rent. It is certainly feasible that a man could then
have his legal family (wife by marriage and children) covered as well
as his mistress and her children. Why not? It would fit the criteria
that has to be met to receive this tax payer subsidized health care
insurance.
What I am saying is that once you shatter the time
honored definition of dependent or family relationship then you open it
up to a whole host of new configurations. This would make anyone
eligible for tax payer subsidized city employee health insurance.
Aunts, uncles, cousins, kissin' cousins, grand parents, parents and
in-laws. Also conceivable as eligible are neighbors, homeless people,
orphans, friends and Joe the bartender at the employee's favorite
watering hole.
This is the real issue here folks! Not the
pros and cons of same-sex marriage or homosexuality or whether or not
people need insurance because of the high cost of medical care, but
this opening of a Pandora's Box.
The re-defining "family" is a
matter for the courts, the legislature, or more democratically, the
ballot box. And until "partners" are given the legal definition of
family my rights as a tax payer are being violated when I am forced to
pay for non-family members insurance. And when companies and businesses
offer these benefits to their employees then I am an unwilling
contributor thru the higher prices I must pay for goods and services of
these businesses, I have not, and will not, judge these actions on a
moral or personal or religious basis in an open forum because the issue
will not be judged on this basis in a court of law. And if the issue
comes to the ballot box then each person will make a decision based on
their beliefs whether religious or secular.
I would like to
point out that while the country is absorbed with the issue of same-sex
marriage businesses, cities and counties all over the country are
making headway in dissolving the tradition definition of family by the
same method used in my city. The more companies, cities, counties and
states who breech the traditional definition of family by offering
benefits to those outside of the family unit then the closer our
country is to making the issue of same-sex marriage a forgone
conclusion appearing to have the population's tacit approval and
needing only the legalities to make it the law of the land. BB