I'm surprised I don't see any talk about City Council passing the same sex benefits issue.
Thoughts?
Same sex benefits
I'm surprised I don't see any talk about City Council passing the same sex benefits issue.
Thoughts?
Opinions expressed by me are mine only and are not in any way, shape, or form representative of the Pueblo Chieftain or Pueblo Community Forums.
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?
"A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"
Oh, well it is getting to a point that we are becoming a moraless nation.
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.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" . . .
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?
Opinions expressed by me are mine only and are not in any way, shape, or form representative of the Pueblo Chieftain or Pueblo Community Forums.
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?Originally Posted by large
"The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office." ~Will Rogers
Which,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 . .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.
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 . .
"A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote