Domestic partner benefits, protections approved
The JFC voted to extend domestic partner retirement and group insurance benefits to state employees despite the objections of Republican members.
Sen. Darling moved to eliminate the provision, saying that it "may be a good idea" this is the wrong time to expand state benefits to a new group.
But Rep. Pocan said the provision merely allows the state to catch up with other neighboring states who already offer the benefits, and that it gives "fairness to all state employees."
Rep. Vos said the extension of the benefits to same-sex couples flies in the face of residents who "voted overwhelmingly" against gay marriage.
(budget paper 324)
It passed on a party-line vote.
UPDATE: On a party-line vote, the committee approved alternatives 1, 2 and 6 in budget paper 391, that allows some protections for domestic partners such as hospital visitation and end-of-life decisions. The motion also included this policy statement: "The Legislature finds that it is in the interests of the citizens of this state to establish and provide the parameters for a legal status of domestic partnership. The Legislature further finds that the legal status of domestic partnership, as established in this chapter, is not substantially similar to that of marriage. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as inconsistent with, or a violation of, article XIII, section 13, of the Wisconsin Constitution."
-- By Greg Bump
5 Comments:
It is absolutely disgusting that you take away my job rights with a furlough, and cut my pay, while throwing money at these people. You are hurtimg my family and me.
Nemo, I'm a state employee too. But one of my co-workers, who will have to take a furlpugh like the rest of us, has not had state benefits for HIS family (same sex partner) for the 20 years of his employment. In contrast, another co-worker (straight, single), who has been with us only a few years, added in the course of one year a wife, new baby, and two step kids. That's four new dependents getting state benefits. Do you think it's "disgusting" to "throw money" at these new dependents? Who has been most hurt by unfairness here?
I am legally married and follow the law of the land. My children are not bastards. I do not expect Wisconsin taxpayers to support single adults who choose to cohabitate without a legal bond, nor their children born outside of wedlock. Those who subvert the law are expecting taxpayers to foot the bill. Everything for everyone, with disregard for the law. Well Lucille, I am losing my job rights and legitimate income. Your attitude and these bad policies are illogical and harmful to law-abiding citizens.
nemo I wasn't aware that you had to be legally married to co habitat or have children. If that is in our laws somewhere point it out. You don't have to be married to have children PERIOD!
Nemo, I too am a state employee and face the furlough and loss of income. Offering benefits like these to all citizens is fair and does not constitute "throwing money" at anyone -- it is rectifying an immoral inequity. Fially, after years of NO such benefits, my partner and I will be eligible for some, but not all of the benefits you have always enjoyed. We are humans, too. We have families. We need the same benefits you do. And yes, we too are law-abiding citizens. I understand you are angry and am sorry you feel imposed upon. But by expressing yourself this way, when you know there are many thousands of same-sex and other couples who will read it, you are also validating that it is not your children who are bastards.
Post a Comment
<< Back to Budget Blog main page