« DFL LEGISLATOR: “NO ONE IS SAFE UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE GOES HOME” | Home | MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN JOKES THAT NEXT TITLE OF BOOK WILL BE CALLED “I F[-ING] HATE THOSE RIGHT-WING MOTHERF[ERS]!” »
SENATE VOTES TO ALLOW SAME-SEX PARTNER BENEFITS
By Michael Brodkorb | March 25, 2007
"The Senate on Saturday voted to allow same-sex partners of state workers to buy into the state's health insurance program, even as opponents charged it was a stealth attempt to clear a path for legalized gay marriage. Supporters said they only want to provide equal treatment to all people who work for the state, regardless of sexual orientation. 'Including this in the bill puts us squarely in the mainstream of Minnesota business,' said Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul. 'Literally dozens of our major companies and employers offer domestic partnership health benefits to their employees. It really is a case of fairness and of recruiting and retaining the best work force possible.'" Source: Pioneer Press, March 24, 2007
Click here for complete story.
###
"Pawlenty's spokesman, Brian McClung, said the governor has always made clear he is opposed to the state offering domestic partnership benefits. He said Pawlenty is willing to veto the entire state government finance bill – the vehicle for the benefits – over the issue. 'One of the things that concerns us is that the governor has been willing to set aside controversial issues and focus on bread-and-butter items, and we see here that Senate Democrats are unwilling to do that in the spirit of cooperation,' McClung said. Senate Republicans tried but failed to strip the domestic partner benefits from the larger bill, arguing that even inserting the term 'domestic partnership' into state law could give a judge the basis to recognize a right to gay marriage. 'I don't believe this is about insurance. I believe this is about creating a building block or laying a cornerstone for same-sex marriage,' said Sen. Tom Neuville, R-Northfield." Source: Pioneer Press, March 24, 2007 Click here for complete story. ### Thoughts? This will be the top post of the day as I'd like to have a thoughtful comment thread on this subject.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 83 Comments »
83 Responses to “SENATE VOTES TO ALLOW SAME-SEX PARTNER BENEFITS”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I don’t think there’s any serious question that it’s two things: an attempt to allow standard health benefits to be bought at reasonable prices by partners of gay/bi/lesbian state employees, and an intended first step toward establishing a social building block towards, eventually, the recognition of same sex marriage. I think proponents of SSM believe that the public will, eventually, come to accept SSM if they see that:
1. It’s being done elsewhere (Canada, MA — and, without that specific name, NJ and VT, with more to come),
2. It’s being done here, in many/most respects — health benefits not breaking the bank, partners being able to exercise durable powers of attorney, etc (and some of that has been done already; the health benefits thing for state employees is just the next step) . . .
. . . without the sky falling.
I think it’s also clear that the groups and people who are in favor of SSM don’t believe that the public in MN is anywhere near ready to support SSM, and that there is, at present, no basis that the courts could rule as the NJ and MA courts have; in fact, the precedents make it clear that the courts wouldn’t, here. Look at where, say, Lambda is filing lawsuits (not here), and actively discouraging the suits from being filed (here, among most other places).
It’s pretty strange, I think, to argue that Lambda is waiting to pounce on the SSM in Minnesota courts, and is only waiting for the ability of same-sex partners to buy into their partners’ health plans to strike.
(I happen to agree with them on that, as I’m one of the folks who thinks that SSM should be acknowledged in the law, and that the right way to do it would be to pass a constitutional amendment to the MN Constitution requiring that governments — not religious institutions or individuals — do just that.)
As a political wedge issue, my own take, fwiw, is that the time when the threat of legalized SSM in Minnesota is useful politically has gone, and may or may not return in the future. I think it’s going to be a very hard sell, politically, next year that there would have been or was harm to the body politic if, say, Alice, the longtime partner of Betty, an employee at DPS (I’m just making up the names; no actual lesbians were outed in the creation of this post) could have bought into or did buy into Betty’s state-sponsored health plan.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:20 AM
At some point Gov. Pawlenty needs to give a little on this issue. Minnesota is not ready for gay marriage, but why go so far as to block every effort to provide some relief for gay and lesbian couples?
The majority of Minnesotans support this measure, including Greater Minnesotans. So as a wedge issue, it’s not so much of one. The smoking ban is far less popular, far more of a wedge issue, yet Pawlenty supports it.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:51 AM
The cost of health insurance is breaking the bank. State employees have the best health insurance in the state — much better than nearly anyone in the private sector. Why should the taxpayers pay for health insurance for any kind of domestic partner — whether same sex or not? Because if you’re going to go down this road, you shouldn’t discriminate between same sex partners and unmarried opposite sex couples living together. And that will be next on the agenda.
I don’t necessarily think this is a back door way to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota. Rather, this is yet another payoff to AFSCME which poured millions of dollars into DFL campaign coffers last year.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:57 AM
I think he ought to give on this issue both because he’s wrong — and I know that there are reasonable people who will disagree with me on that — and because there’s no political advantage to either threatening a veto or actually vetoing the bill.
I think he’s getting bad advice on the second — not necessarily just from ScottWigginsOfTheGovernorsOffice.
Is he really going to gain any political points by threatening to grind state government to a halt over something that won’t cost the state a dime, and would just make it easier and less expensive for some state employees’ families to buy health insurance? Will this stop the influx of gay/lesbian couples that are threatening our streets with better-trimmed lawns (semi-seriously: have you ever seen a rainbow flag at a house that hadn’t been mowed recently?)?
As to the overall policy debate — should Minnesota give legal recognition to families headed by same sex couples? — this doesn’t move the ball one way or the other, either way; it just makes opponents look mean-spirited, and gives liberal hysterics like Sandy Pappas an opportunity to sound reasonable.
And this is politically beneficial because . . . ?
March 25th, 2007 at 12:12 PM
So, the bottom line is that it is not OK for conservatives to push legislation that pertains to same-sex issues when they are in power, but it is OK for liberals to push legislation that pertains to same-sex issues when they are in power.
If the Democrats truly believe this is an issue that needs to be decided on the “merits,” then why don’t they propose and try to pass legislation that recognizes civil unions, which, among other things, would grant health insurance benefits to same-sex partners?
March 25th, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I oppose this but will accept it if it is done by the people who we voted into office.
Very different then activist judges imposing things like gay marriage on us.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:23 PM
What about non-married different sex partners? My employer gives full benefits to same-sex unmarried partners, but not to different sex unmarried partners.
March 25th, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Does anyone have an example of a DFL legislative candidate campaigning on this issue? For example, did a DFL legislative candidate say “elect me and I’ll push legislation that will allow same-sex partner benefits”?
March 25th, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Scott Dibble.
March 25th, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Scott Dibble, for one.
March 25th, 2007 at 1:13 PM
“The majority of Minnesotans support the measure, including Greater Minnesota” Nothing could be further from the truth. You need to get away from the tall buildings for a change. Greater MN does not support domestic partner benefits.I would bet the backlash in Sen Koerings district will be incredible and it will have nothing to do with his orientation – but his vote. “something that won’t cost the state a dime” How can providing more health benefits not cost anything? I think the cost to the State of Minnesota will be great and in more ways than are monetary. It is fine for a private company to offer benefits – it’s their money, their business, but it is just plain wrong to use taxpayer dollars on an issue that is very personally devisive.
March 25th, 2007 at 1:47 PM
At some point Gov. Pawlenty needs to give a little on this issue. Minnesota is not ready for gay marriage, but why go so far as to block every effort to provide some relief for gay and lesbian couples?
Non-sense. Public policy should not and cannot be based on the perverted, immoral sexual preferences/behaviors of an extremely small group of people. (I’ll bet that gets the ire of RINO Eva).
Why these people expect me and other taxpayers to subsidize their unhealthy lifestyle with favorable health insurance rates is beyond me.
Get a job and get your own insurance. But stop asking me to pay for it based solely on who you decide to bed down with for a few months.
Oh, and this “wedge issue” crap is just DFL code for an issue they fear taking head-on against Republicans. They know the public is against SSM by huge numbers so it becomes a “wedge issue” in order to attempt to force Republicans to stop talking about it.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:00 PM
I’m trying to understand some of the opposition on this. The proponents of this bill say that it would allow same-sex partners to buy into their state employee partners’ health insurance plans; the bill’s sponsors say that it would allow same-sex partners to buy into their state employee partners’ health insurance plans.
And the opposition to it, here, says that it will cost the state money.
So, go ahead: point to the language in the bill that will force the state to pay for same-sex employees’ partners’ health benefits.
Lots of luck finding it.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Rudy … The majority of Minnesotans do support domestic partner benefits for public employees, according to a SurveyUSA poll released by KSTP-TV. (I would hyperlink to it, but I don’t want anyone to get upset. Google it.) Statewide it was favored 52-41; by region: in the Twin Cities 51-44, in South MN 59-31, in West MN 61-34, and it was not favored in North MN 46-41. I found a press note of it dated March 9th.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:04 PM
Rudy-
Polling suggests that Greater Minnesota does indeed support this measure, and in fact, the majority of Minnesotans have supported domestic partner benefits for years. Link
Unless you know of some other poll numbers I don’t…
Tedd-
The bill would not cost taxpayers extra money, domestic partners have the benefit of buying into state health care. You may disagree with “the perverts,” but we’ve always been here and always will be. It’s just a fact of life.
Brodkorb and the Governer brought up “wedge issues.” Re-read the PiPress and Brodkorb’s post agian please.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Also, for those concerned with unmarried mixed gender couples, and how they can get benefits. Tell them to walk down to the county court house and get their marriage license. Same-sex couples don’t have that option, and arguing for unmarried mixed gender couples defeats the entire point of the debate.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Andy: I’m not bringing up “wedge issue” – I posted an article from the Pioneer Press. I’m interested in having a healthy and productive debate on my blog on this subject.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Tedd, if you’re really, for whatever reason, worried about the “perverted, immoral sexual preferences/behaviors of an extremely small group of people” why quibble over the state letting partners of gay/bi/lesbians buy into health insurance? Why not just push to have those behaviors that concern you so much punished by law?
March 25th, 2007 at 2:36 PM
This is a wedge issue. Governor Pawlenty has threatened to veto the entire state finance bill over something that cost $200,000 in 2003. It may get him on a national ticket, it won’t help Minnesota.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Joel,
You asked where in the bill it says that the state will have to pay for the benefits to homosexual domestic partners. That’s a silly question to even ask Joel and I think you know that. The terms of union contracts are negotiated between AFSCME and the state. The taxpayers will be paying for these benefits soon because AFSCME will require the state to pay for the benefits under collective bargaining and I think you know it.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:42 PM
So what would the financial cost be?
March 25th, 2007 at 2:52 PM
So, Chris, you’re admitting that the only argument you’ve got with regard to this ever costing the state a dime is that you know that AFSCME negotiates some union contracts with the state, for some state employees, and that you believe that AFSCME will “require” the state to cover the costs.
Surely, you’ve got a better argument for that.
Michael: there will be no cost at all, should the current bill become law. Even if Chris’ hypothetical were to, at some point in the future, become true — as unlikely as it would seem — that would only affect those partners of state employees who were covered by contracts between the state and AFSCME, and then only if the Pawlenty administration were to cave into AFSCME on those contracts.
That is, to be gentle, not a serious concern.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:08 PM
What’s the rationale of extending the buy-in option to only same-sex partners? Why not extend the option to different-sex partners?
March 25th, 2007 at 3:41 PM
The rationale is that different-sex partners have the option of obtaining a marriage license that would automatically give them the option to buy in.
Michael- My apologies. It was Pawlenty, not you that named this a wedge issue.
March 25th, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Andy: Do you believe allowing same-sex partner benefits increases the likelyhood of the legalization of gay marriages? Are the two issue separate?
March 25th, 2007 at 4:03 PM
“The rationale is that different-sex partners have the option of obtaining a marriage license that would automatically give them the option to buy in.”
If that truly is the rationale (which I doubt it is), then the law the Democrats should propose is the legalization of same-sex marriage and not the option to buy into the state health insurance plan because, undoubtedly, this legislation, if it becomes law, will be challenged by different-sex partners because of its discriminatory impact – against them. At that point, the court will either toss out the law or extend coverage to different-sex partners to avoid the discriminatory impact of the law. And, this, folks, is ultimately where debate over the re-definition of marriage leads — into a legal morass in which the court serves as final arbiter of what type of social arrangements receive legal recognitions and benefits.
This law, if it passes, will do more to resurrect the marriage amendment debate than Bachmann could have ever done, were she still in the state Legislature.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Does anyone know of a real poll that has been done? I would be very interested. I hardly think the KSTP poll of 500 adults is a true indication of what Minnesota thinks.
March 25th, 2007 at 4:45 PM
WTM, et al: Actually, this bill does provide for non-married mixed sex couples. It was amended in committee and OutFront Minnesota supported that measure.
Michael: I don’t believe that it will lead judicially to same-sex marriage. Minnesota had the first court decision in the nation, back in 1971, that ruled against same-sex marriage on the grounds currently debated here. Judicial precedent has already been set, and there has been no discussion of anyone working toward a lawsuit against the state.
OutFront is doing it’s best to secure rights for LGBT folks within the climate in Minnesota. The community understands the sensitivity of this issue. And while same-sex marriage would be the most broad and helpful way to help LGBT couples, it simply isn’t an option in Minnesota. The people don’t want it, legislators don’t want it (DFL or GOP), and a judicial decision in favor of same-sex marriage would only create more problems for LGBT people.
And I think these bills are a fair compromise. Others in the LGBT would disagree angrily, but they also don’t follow politics like I do. You do what you can to help people when you can.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:02 PM
I don’t think this is a bad thing. Private sector companies are doing it and Minnesota has before. “Rewarding monogamy,” to quote Jesse Ventura, isn’t the worst thing the state could do.
That said, I’d like to see it put off until next year. Property taxes, education, health care and transportation this year.
Gay marriage is a wedge issue. To me, this seems to be a matter of doing the right thing. I do, however, understand how some see it as the first step toward marriage. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s a big deal. I’d vote for it.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Rudy, this is a national poll, but it’s interesting.
America seems to be about 50-50 on gay issues. Minnesota could probably be adjusted a little leftward of America, but that’s just a guess.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Highlights:
1. 63 percent say gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military
2. 50 percent support giving gay couples either marriage or civil union rights
3. 51 percent favor same-sex marriage bans
March 25th, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Joel,
Come on, you know better than that. AFSCME has been lobbying the Capitol for the last decade to allow benefits for all domestic partnerships (both same sex and opposite sex). I just confirmed this with a retired House member who was lobbied about this issue in her district on Holy Saturday a few years ago.
While I agree that the end game is legalization of homosexual relationships, this is a total pay off to AFSCME. Once health benefits for domestic partners are in state law, they will be put into future contracts for state employees. So Joel, your argument that taxpayers won’t be footing the bill for insurance for gay partners just falls flat.
And yes, private companies give benefits to domestic partnerships. But that does not mean it is prudent for the state to be doing so. If the state employees don’t like their current arrangements, they should work for a private company that gives them what they want and not demand it from the taxpayers.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:35 PM
So, Chris, you’re admitting that this bill wouldn’t cost the taxpayers a dime, but claim that some unlikely future negotiation with AFSCME would cause the Pawlenty administration to waffle . . .
Hmm. . . maybe you’ve almost got a point. But think about what that says about Governor Waffle.
March 25th, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Christopher – Thanks. Chris the other union group that is actually very viscious on this issue are the university’s IFO’s (inter faculty association)I do believe they are looking for payback too on their election help. When the state contract was not ratified in 2003 because it contained domestic partner benefits they had a rabid lobbyist working at the capital.
March 25th, 2007 at 6:42 PM
The rationale is that different-sex partners have the option of obtaining a marriage license that would automatically give them the option to buy in.
So a liberal admits that giving same-sex perverts access to state health insurance is a SPECIAL deal (re: a special privilege not available to normal couples).
For years they’ve complained they didn’t want special rights, just “equal” rights. When asked to defend their call for a special right they admit that it is indeed a special right they wouldn’t extend to normal people.
March 25th, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Tedd: I’m having trouble following your logic here. Same-sex couples don’t have the ability to get a marriage license. Hetero couples do. It’s already extended to ‘normal people.’
And, as I pointed out earlier, the bill was amended to include other couples.
If “special rights” means I get to pay more for something everyone else has, then yeah, I guess us “perverts” get to have special rights under this bill.
“Equal rights” in this instance would mean State employee “preverts” would pay the same premium as “normal couples.” That’s not what this bill does.
March 25th, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Pretty simple, Andy. You said you wouldn’t give normal couples the ability to do what you want pervert couples to get. You’re asking taxpayers to support your ability to get something based solely on your sexual perversion while keeping normal couples that same ability.
Leave it to a lib to try and twist that simple logic into something else.
March 25th, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Joel,
Obviously you are not reading what I’ve actually wrote. The bill WILL cost the taxpayers plenty when all of the state employees with domestic partners get free health insurance for their partners as part of their union contracts. This is the payback that AFSCME has been looking for for a decade. I’ve looked at your blog and I’m with you on the gun issue. It also appears that you are politically active. Talk to a legislator and ask them about this. They will tell you that AFSCME has been lobbying for domestic partner benefits so the state can pick up the tab on health insurance for unmarried gay and hetero couples alike.
March 25th, 2007 at 7:45 PM
And Joel,
There will be another Governor after Tim Pawlenty. Once this hits state law, there is no extracting it.
March 25th, 2007 at 8:00 PM
How many other states allow same-sex partner benefits like the proposal that passed the Minnesota Senate?
March 25th, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Chris, claiming it will cost something at some unknown time in the future because some union might negotiate for it makes no sense. Would the union negotiate for the state to pay for health insurance for partners (something that affects a small fraction of its membership), or for a bigger wage increase (something that affects all of its membership)? Hint: the union heads want to be re-elected.
A better claim might be that adding these partners to the pool will increase the average costs, and therefore cost the state money. However, the statistics say otherwise.
And state laws can be amended.
Dave of the VWRC: please explain how an activist judge can impose gay marriage on me. I don’t marry anybody I don’t want to, and no judge gets to make me.
Why do you care what other people do, or who they marry? How does that affect you?
Or do you think that all morality should be written into law? Maybe anybody who wears a garment made from mixed fibers should be imprisoned, or at least not allowed to marry? After all, that prohibition is in the same part of the Bible as the one against homosexuality.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Tedd: Ok, now you’re just hurling invective statements without even acknowledging the issue.
1. This bill allows domestic partners the option of buying health care at the rate the state pays. As I pointed out above and as the article states, this will cost the state nothing.
2. As I pointed out above, the bill was amended to allow other couples, unmarried hetero couples included, to do the same.
I’m not twisting. Those are the facts. I didn’t make them up.
So, tell me again. Where in this bill does it allow same-sex couples access to something everyone else doesn’t already have access to?
And I agreed with you. These are special rights. And what makes them special is that same-sex couples have to pay more for what is already offered other couples.
Please try and look past your anger at ‘perverts’ and address the facts.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Tedd: There is no twisting from this liberal. I’m merely pointing out the facts.
1. This bill would allow same-sex partners to buy state health care at the cost the state pays for it. It will not cost the state.
2. This bill allows other couples, unmarried heteros, the same option.
I’m not making these up. These are the facts.
Your distaste for gay people aside, the only thing special about any rights here is that if it passes, some people will have to pay more for health care than others. And the majority of those people will be gays and lesbians. So, again, this may be special rights, but what makes them special is one person has to pay more for something someone else gets for less.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Seth,
Give me a break! Do you not think that there is a significant number of AFSCME members who live outside of marriage with another person (gay or straight)? Why is it that AFSCME has been lobbying legislators for a decade to add these benefits to law?
And yes, it will cost the taxpayers dearly. The cost of health insurance is much higher than another 3% raise for these people. Why is it that state employees threaten to go on strike when the state proposes charging them more for health care?
Seth, talk to a legislator or an AFSCME member sometime. They will tell you this is what the union has been lobbying for. As for amending the state laws, name one benefit that goes into state law that ever goes away. I can’t think of one.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I think Pawlenty’s making a mistake by vetoing the whole bill over this one provision. It will be interesting to see what he does over the other bills that are coming – allowing municipalities to offer domestic partner benefits, and the hospital visitation bill.
The usual suspects are going after Paul Koering big time for supporting these bills. What’s interesting is they are focusing much more on Koering (a republican) rather than Dibble (a democrat).
Linda Higgins was campaigning on this issue. In fact she sent out a targeted mailing attacking her republican opponent for being the plaintiff for the lawsuit that stripped Minneapolis employees of DP benefits.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Paul Koering won his republican caucus and primary in his district, and he easily won his general election campaign. The bigots have, and will continue to go after him, but he will do fine. His sexual orientation has always been the issue – because otherwise, they’d have gone after other republicans promoting this bill – Erhardt and Neil Peterson – for example.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Chris, while the cost of Health Insurance is high, what is the cost (in dollars) of *allowing* people to *buy it* at their own expense?
Suppose the state had a deal with some car dealers to allow state employees to buy cars at a discount; would it cost the state a lot to add other people to that discount program? They’re getting cheaper cars, all those people; but they’re paying with their own money.
If you claim you can predict the results of future negotiations, I’d like some evidence: show pointers to predictions you’ve made in past years, so we can see your track record.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:45 AM
Eva You know nothing of what went on in Sen Koerings district – only what you perceive. The “bigots ” are not after him. He has become one of the most liberal Sen at the capital, easy to check his record. Why is it that we can’t talk about his voting record and bill introductions without it being about his being gay. They all knew that before he was elected, it was not an issue but that was when he was very conservative. His first year at the capital he voted against domestic partner benefits – now he authors the bill. He was elected as a Republican, they are certainly allowed to question and object when their representative goes directly against their platform – that is not bigotry.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:46 AM
Well, Pawlenty hasn’t vetoed the bill over this; he’s just threatened to. Whether or not he will remains to be seen.
Either way, it looks petty. Vetoing (or threatening to veto) the entire bill over the “threat” that some small number of partners of state employees will, at their own expense, buy health insurance? If the DFL had set out to make Pawlenty look petty (or, if he doesn’t veto the bill after threatening to, petty and weak) on this issue, how could they have done it better?
It’s not even a useful gay-bashing issue anymore, now that as Andy pointed out, the bill has been changed to allow any partners of state employees — same sex or opposite sex — to buy into the state health plan.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:52 AM
while the cost of Health Insurance is high, what is the cost (in dollars) of *allowing* people to *buy it* at their own expense?
The cost is that you’ve just said the state can give special benefits to people because of their sexual behavior. You’ve set precedence. You’ve made the norming of sexual-behavior-based policy state policy.
Despite what some have attempted to state here, the vast majority of Minnesotans would not stand for SSM and would toss anyone who voted for it (save the hard-core commies in Mpls and St. Paul – they’d erect statues in their honor…pun intended).
March 26th, 2007 at 8:01 AM
I believe the KSTP poll was a push. It never mentioned that marriage (domestic partnership) meant persons of the same sex.
Don’t be fooled into thinking “compromise†will bring an end to the same-sex marriage debate. It won’t. In states that have passed domestic partnerships or civil unions, same-sex marriage supporters have declared them a stepping stone or down payment toward homosexual marriage. OutFront has no intention of compromising until same-sex marriage has been legalized.
It is common knowledge that the goal is to achieve incremental steps toward same-sex marriage. Therefore, supporters of the bill are an accomplice to legalizing same-sex marriage.
This is why we need a marriage amendment.
Ted, please can the “pervert” talk.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:13 AM
To Eva, anyone who opposed one of her homosexual friends is a “bigot”. If you’re against her or her friends they conveniently call you a “bigot”. It’s the politics of stupidity.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:08 AM
Andy,
According to the senate web site, the omnibus bill passed Saturday contains the discriminatory, same-sex only language.
16.25 Subd. 18a. Domestic partner. “Domestic partner” means a person who has entered
16.26 into a committed interdependent relationship with another adult of the same sex, where
Clearly, this is an attempt to chip away at the definition of marriage.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Seth,
Are you joking? If you want to bury your head in the sand, go right ahead. But I’ve been around long enough to know that AFSCME is going to make the state pay for the insurance for domestic partners just as the state pays the insurance of spouses and dependents. If you’re so ignorant that you cannot see this, I can’t help it. All I can say is talk to the AFSCME people and talk to your legislators. AFSCME has been lobbying for a decade to get this.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:09 AM
So, Chris, you’re both claiming that the uber-powerful AFSCME has been lobbying for a decade to get the state to pay for health benefits for state employees’ same-sex partners, but has been unable to do it, and will immediately be able to get it if the state allows state employees’ same-sex (or opposite sex) partners to buy — out of their own pockets — into the state health plan.
Got it. I don’t believe it for a moment, mind you, but I do understand what your claim is that you’re worried about.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Hypothetical question:
What if the state in an effort to reform health insurance stepped up and rescinded all healthcare coverage for state employees, instead giving them a salary adjustment to remove the benefit from the state’s oversight?
What if subsequently the incentive to provide a health insurance benefit was removed from the private sector business oversight?
What would ultimately happen if the government and private business got out of the healthcare business altogether?
What if Medicare and Medicaid were likewise abolished? Of course, the state or some other subdivision of governmnet would have to step into some newly crafted program for thsoe who are unable to support themeselves. But that could be accomplished at a local level instead of being such a huge proliferator of federal and state bureaucracy.
It’s a hypothetyical question. Certainly there will be angst on both ends of the spectrum but let’s have the discussion.
My personal opinion is that anytime we rely on governmnet to provide services (or statutory provision for services) that are more efficiently accessible through private enterprise, we all lose.
One might conclude that the problem isn’t healthcare but rather healthcare insurance and the role that government (state and federal)plays in regulating and hence screwing it all up.
Welfare healthcare administered by the government for all is not the answer.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Indeed!
I see the government as Anne Wilkes and the healthcare market as Paul Sheldon in “Misery” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100157/).
“I’m your number one fan!” *crunch*
The sick thing is we keep trying to fix poor Pauls legs with ball-peen hammers.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Drew I half way agree with your thought. What would happen if there was a way to put more in one’s salary and allow the individual to seek health care. The problem would be how do you keep a lid on the industry from rising premiums and such. If it were possible to make that happen I wonder what it would cost the State to focus benefits on those who can not afford coverage on their own, specificly Seniors and below poverty families. That would be where I would differ from you Drew, I would rather see that remain on the State level. Boy find a way to make this happen and it could effect a lot of different issues besides health care.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I dunno. Of all the things that Governor Pawlenty could do to prevent the putative threat of a handful of same- or opposite-sex partners being able to buy into the state employees’ health insurance plan, it seems to me that a futile push to cancel the state employees’ health insurance plan would be among the silliest.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:49 PM
There is a double standard here because not every Gay couple want to be married just as Hetrosexuals don’t Yet if Gay couple want to get partner benefits in this legislation they can get it. What about the unmarried Hetrosexuals who should be allowed the same benefits and they share children. Just don’t pretend that giving benefits won’t become a huge unerlying expense for taxpayers. Sure people want them yet why can’t the “spouses” carry their own insurance through their own employment? Why should the taxpayers be forced to pay with no end in sight?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Joel,
Looking at your blog I thought you were smarter than this. Who has controlled the state House from 1998 until today? The Republicans have. Are you just ignorant or do you not understand that Republicans weren’t about to roll over and take it in the backside for AFSCME. But after a decade of Republican control in the House, the DFLers are back and it’s payback for AFSCME.
I can’t belive you are this ignorant. Maybe you should stick to your single issue of Second Amendment liberty because that seems to be your one strong suit.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Chris, how often has this particular I-can’t-believe-you’re-too-ignorant-to-agree-with-my-bogus pronouncements thing worked for you?
Again, read the bill: it allows partners of state employees to buy — that is, to spend their own money, not the taxpayers’ — into the state employees health program. Back during 2003 when these same partners could get those same benefits with the state paying for them, few did.
Yet, now, when it wouldn’t cost the state a dime, you bring out the AFSCME boogeyman to frighten yourself with.
Who, precisely, do you think you’re fooling?
Beyond that, try to focus on the facts; you’ll note that this particular bill that you’ve been inveighing against has, as of now, passed in the Minnesota Senate — which is now, and has been for some time, controlled by the DFL — and not the House.
Your view of AFSCME as being some bizarrely powerful organization that can magically change a law that would allow some small number of people to buy into the state employee health plan — at no cost to the state — into some humongous payback (how? You don’t quite say, although you keep not quite saying with some heat, if not a lot else) for AFSCME is kind of, well, strange.
Some might even call, it, well . . . let’s not go there, shall we?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:16 PM
On Koering, when the focus of going after him, seems to be on these bills, there’s definitely anti-gay bigotry that’s part of it. Go check out the blog of his GOP opponent, and tell me that wasn’t bigotry.
I don’t hear his opponents going after him over other parts of his record that aren’t fiscally conservative. It’s all the social issues. I was furious at Koering for his vote on the stadium, and it’s surprising to see him in a press conference with Linda Berglin on health care.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Ted, you really should stop gay bashing. If you can’t debate like an adult then you should stop embarrasing yourself and simply stop leaving comments.
Giving a group of people the same rights that everyone else enjoys are not special rights.
Telling homosexuals that if they want to have their partner covered in their health insurance then they should get a new job is ridiculous. That is being a defeatist and a really childish thing to say. You dont leave something because you dislike their policies, you try to change them, and then if that fails over and over again then quitting may be a logical move but it can be changed rather easily.
Who cares if it costs the state any money. It will be minimal because in all honesty, how many extra people will this cover? My taxes has to pay for straight people to get health insurance and you dont see me complaining about it and I dont see you complaining about it either.
This is absolutely is a stepping stone to gay marriage. The ultimate goal is gay marriage and it always will be, these are small, winnable battles on the road to gay marriage will absolutely one day happen, you just need to lay the groundwork for the little things first. Outfront isnt going to press for gay marriage until Minnesota is ready for it. That may be in a year or it could be in 10.
The general public will certainly get to the point of supporting SSM (polls have shown that support for gay marriage has gone up about 20% since 2004, im too lazy to get the poll numbers, sorry) and when it does, Outfront will lobby for gay marriage and it will happen and the gays and liberals will rejoice, the conservatives will bitch and moan. And then in the next 5 years after gay marriage is legalized, the issue will be over and no one will even care and many of the conservatives will come to accept the notion of SSM, just like how many conservatives embrace black people as actual people, not slaves.
Its inevitable, you can fight all you want, Pawlenty can veto to his heart content but there hasnt been a single civil rights movement that has failed, not a single one and it appears this one wont be the first.
sorry conservatives….
March 26th, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Joel,
All I can say is that you must belong to AFSCME. If you don’t think the same language is going to pass the House, you’re stupid. Read the AFSCME web site and look at what they are doing. They are lobbying hard for more benefits.
Unlike you, apparently, I have spent time working at the Capitol and I know from my own experience as well as from what legislators have told me that AFSCME has been lobbying for these benefits. It’s sad because you’re so driven by talking points and ideology that you won’t go out and talk to the people in St. Paul who know what’s going on. As I said, you must be an AFSCME member.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:39 PM
P.S. Joel,
Since you think this is such a good idea, let me ask you the question: if the state pays for health insurance coverage for spouses and dependents of state workers, why shouldn’t they pay for coverage for domestic partners once this law passes?
March 26th, 2007 at 9:58 PM
P.P.S. Joel,
If you doubt that AFSCME is powerful, two of their PACs: (AFSCME & AFSCME Council 5) spent $1,631,866.89 ($641,746 and $990,120.89 respectively) electing Minnesota Democrats in the last election.
March 27th, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Roving Reporter, the state has always given special benefits to people because of their sexual behavior; traditionally, it’s called “marriage”.
Chuck, please explain exactly how defining something other than marriage “chips away at marriage”. My parents have been married for decades; whether or no John and James can get married to each other has absolutely no effect on my parents’ marriage.
Chris, so you just “know” what will happen? I asked for your track record, not another claim that you just “know”. With your precognitive abilities, you ought to make enough money in the stock market not to have to care how much the government wastes.
KenT, do you favor allowing gay couples to get married and thereby share benefits? That would solve the discrimination problem.
Andrew, I know several conservatives who are in favor of allowing gay marriage. As one put it, “Why should they have special privileges like lower taxes and no mothers-in-law?”
March 27th, 2007 at 6:28 AM
Chris, don’t you have anything better than ad hominem attacks? Just so you’ll know, no, I don’t belong to AFSCME; I haven’t belonged to any union since 1978, and not being a government employee, well, ever, I’d be a remarkably unlikely candidate to join AFSCME.
And, no, the state shouldn’t pay for benefits for domestic partners once this passes; this bill doesn’t authorize that. I think it would be just fine if the state paid for health benefits for domestic partners if another bill, authorizing that, were to pass, but that’s another discussion for another day.
Besides, haven’t you heard? This isn’t going to become law, if you believe the Pawlenty administration — Governor Pawlenty says that he’ll veto the entire bill rather than let some small number of partners of state employees buy into the state health insurance plan.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:52 AM
Andrew, you’re going too far — of course there have been civil rights movements that have failed. Remember Tienanmen Square?
That said, this particular bill is a very modest, and largely symbolic step. Allowing unmarried partners to buy into a health insurance plan is, other than for the handful of folks who will do that (and it will, at most, be a handful — remember how few state employees’ same sex partners signed up for it when the state was paying for it) it’s entirely symbolic.
Which is why some folks are so upset about it, I expect — treating same sex partners of folks a little less unfairly seems to scare them, and clearly bothers them.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:09 AM
I know many conservatives who are in favor of the recognition of gay marriage, although it’s certainly not a majority.
That said, this whole kerfuffle should probably move the ball a little — most reasonable people, liberal and conservative, will wonder what’s so very scary about a few bis, gays, and lesbians being able to buy health insurance, and why that’s worth threatening (or, worse vetoing) an omnibus spending bill over.
The proponents of SSM have, in my opinion, played this one brilliantly, and Pawlenty has been uncharacteristically clumsy.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:14 AM
Seth,
You are right; it has nothing to do with your parents marriage. In fact, your question has nothing to do with the debate.
Marriage is not a set of benefits, it is for children. And, children need a mother and a father. Thanks to no-fault divorce we have a mountain of sociological evidence that shows children need a mom and a dad. The evidence does not show children need two loving people in a committed relationship.
The African American community has pointed out they have tried to raise kids with two loving, committed adults; a mom and grandma, and it doesn’t work.
A child has a civil right to the diversity of a mother and a father, married and in the home.
God speed
March 27th, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Seth,
If you don’t believe the state will be paying for health insurance for domestic partners, I can’t do anything to change your dogma. The question I ask you — the same question Joel dodged — is: if the state pays for health insurance for spouses and dependents of employees, why shouldn’t the state pay for insurance for domestic partners if this bill is passed?
As for my abilities to predict the future, I am not a psychic. But I am educated enough to use knowledge and predict what will happen in a later date. I can’t prove this to you Seth, so you will have to take my word. But I did buy a few thousand shares of Crown Cork & Seal (CCK) at $3.56/share in the winter of 2001/02. Yesterday, CCK closed at around $24.70/share.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Awesome, now I can finally get health insurance for my roommate.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:22 AM
The more I’ve thought about it the more sense it makes to remove healthcare benefits from the state’s oversight. ANd subsequently to remove any incentive for private entreprise to promote health insurance.
My conclusions are radical but quite simple:
1. The governmnet is the problem. The governmnet is corrupt. Having them manage this is patently irresponsible and effectively doubles the cost to all of us.
2. The insurance industry is next in line for culpability in this. Take the gov teat out of their mouths and competition will start to have a chance.
3. The only real answer is unfettered capitalism and a healthy dose of charity to attend to those who can’t take care of themselves.
Otherwise, welcome to the European Union. Your wart removal will be in July 2009.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:33 AM
The question I ask you — the same question Joel dodged — is: if the state pays for health insurance for spouses and dependents of employees, why shouldn’t the state pay for insurance for domestic partners if this bill is passed?
Geez, try to be a little less clumsy, Chris. The answer is very simple, and even you shouldn’t have any difficulty understanding it: this bill allows the domestic partners to buy insurance; it doesn’t mandate — or allow — that the state pay for it.
Got it? I didn’t think so. *Sigh.*
Me, I think that the state should pay for health insurance for employees’ spouses, including domestic partners for those who are unmarried, but — and let me type this slowly, Chris, so you can understand it: This. Bill. Doesn’t. Do. That.
Got it? I didn’t think so, either. *Sigh.*
March 27th, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Joel,
You do think the state should pay for insurance for domestic partners. So does AFSCME. I know you’re not bright enough to understand how union contracts work. There is nothing in state law requiring the state to pay for health insurance for spouses and dependents either, but (let me type this slowly so you can understand it) the state DOES pay for health insurance because AFSCME bargains for it in their union contracts.
Joel, I will bet you a Big Mac Extra Value Meal that once this bill becomes law, the state will be paying for health insurance for domestic partners. I’m smart enough to know AFSCME didn’t give $1.6+ million in campaign contributions to the DFL for nothing.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Chris, please ask a friend — I’m sure you have one, somewhere, somehow — how silly you’re sounding. Of course AFSCME, your boogeyman under every bed, contributed to the DFL, and not for nothing . . . but for the supposedly significant payoff of having domestic partners of some AFSCME members be able to buy health insurance?
Please stop being so silly.
Again, even in the year that the state did pay for health insurance for domestic partners, it was a very small amount, by the perspective of the state budge — about a nickel per Minnesotan.
Besides, have you no faith in Governor Pawlenty? He’s promised to veto the whole bill, bringing state government to a halt if the DFL doesn’t back down, to prevent this horrid threat of domestic partners of some small number of state employees buying health insurance.
But, have it your way. Assume that, once more, there will be a small handful of domestic partners with health insurance.
Run for the hills!
Ten more Lesbians with Medica cards? Another seven gay men show up at at Synders to do their co-pays for their scrips? Three bisexuals lining up at the internist?
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
March 27th, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Joel,
I honestly cannot believe how ignorant you are. I wish you would stick to the gun issue, because at least that seems like a topic you know something about. Because you certainly don’t know anything about unions, AFSCME, lobbying or campaign contributions. Why would AFSCME lobby for this for the past almost ten years if it wasn’t an important issue.
What this boils down to is that you don’t care about facts. You just want to fund the gays. Maybe they’ll buy guns if they don’t have to buy insurance. Who knows. What is silly though is how strongly you insist on something you know nothing about. Have you ever been to the Capitol, Joel? Because I honestly don’t think you know anything about the dynamics of state government in Minnesota.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Finally, Joel,
Your comments about buying health insurance are just dumb. Almost anyone can qualify to privately purchase health insurance if they want to. Nothing in state law is preventing any of these people from purchasing thier own health insurance policy if they want.
March 28th, 2007 at 6:56 AM
Chris, find somebody very, very patient to explain to you the difficulties and expense of individuals — particularly those who have any pre-existing health condition, like, say, diabetes — buying one-off health insurance.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:14 AM
if that bigot up there, Tedd, had his way, Blacks would not be covered under health insurance either.
March 28th, 2007 at 11:14 AM
oh yeah, Mexicans too
April 4th, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Chuck, if marriage is (only) for the children, should my 90-year-old widower uncle not have been allowed to marry an 88-year-old widow? After all, they couldn’t have children.
And there are already lots of single parents, for many different reasons. Do you think their children would be worse off with gay married parents or a single parent?
Chris, if you want to know why the state won’t be paying for the health benefits of domestic partners under the proposed law, it’s because the law specifically says so.