PDA

View Full Version : Same sex benefits



Sandra
10-10-2012, 10:14 AM
I'm surprised I don't see any talk about City Council passing the same sex benefits issue.

Thoughts?

large
10-10-2012, 10:19 AM
Whaddya mean? That they did? Or that you didn't know they did?

It was in the paper this morning that all but one member voted in the affirmative, that "Backward" holdout being the Council President, Chris Kaufman . . All the rest voted for the ordnance.

Which brings me back to something left unexplained by those on Council and neglected by the Chieftain's reporters . .

IF . . Bill and Joe can be insured as "partners" and Jill and Joan can be insured as "partners", can Bill and Joan can be insured as "partners" . . .

Anyone?

Pastor Roy
10-10-2012, 11:05 AM
Oh, well it is getting to a point that we are becoming a moraless nation.

Sandra
10-10-2012, 11:17 AM
IF . . Bill and Joe can be insured as "partners" and Jill and Joan can be insured as "partners", can Bill and Joan can be insured as "partners" . . .

When I spoke with Sandy Daff about this she indicated to me that there is supposed to be a provision in place whereby only same sex couples and not heterosexual ones could be counted and that is to kind of make up for the loss of not being able to marry.

So that being the case, if those unions were to become legally registered, then would same sex couples still get benefits even if they are not in a legally registered union?

Personally, I think that as long as you are living with someone, no matter who it is - you should be able to insure them. You shouldn't have to have sex with someone to be able to put them on your benefits. I know siblings who are older and single who live together; I know some adult children who are living with their widowed parents and taking care of them. I know of best friends who share a house or an apartment - no sex involved - shouldn't they be allowed to insure them?

Loren Swelk
10-10-2012, 11:33 AM
Which brings me back to something left unexplained by those on Council and neglected by the Chieftain's reporters . .

IF . . Bill and Joe can be insured as "partners" and Jill and Joan can be insured as "partners", can Bill and Joan can be insured as "partners".

If Bill and Joan can't be insured as "partners", then the benefit is discriminatory and the City Council will find themselves defending another unwinnable lawsuit. Where is the quasi city attorney in all of this?

large
10-10-2012, 01:29 PM
Which,
When I spoke with Sandy Daff about this she indicated to me that there is supposed to be a provision in place whereby only same sex couples and not heterosexual ones could be counted and that is to kind of make up for the loss of not being able to marry.is 1000000% discriminatory . . The fact that state law doesn't either "Allow" or recognize "Same Sex" unions, partners, or whatever doesn't make a taxpayer in the City of Pueblo liable for the dis-allowance . . We have neither the right or the legally responsible place to make up to someone what, in the case of Colorado, fails to recognize because of a Majority Vote, statewide . .

That reasoning, in itself, shows me that the City Council has failed to mature past the point of being whining, spineless liberals who will waste tax dollars on anything but the real business of the City . .

I hope that some of the couples who are living together will sue their collective @sses for this discriminatory practice . .