At last night's debate between Bicking and Schiff (9th ward), Schiff mentioned something about a domestic partners ordinance that he supported. Was that the failed attempt to secure health insurance for same sex domestic partners of city employees / city contractors?
I criticized the above mentioned ordinance because it did not apply to all unmarried domestic partners. I was correct in warning that the ordinance was likely to be killed by the MN Supreme Court (or at the federal level) for making sexual orientation a criteria for granting benefits. Unfortunately, the city council would have been on more solid ground had its opted to extend benefits to all unmarried domestic partners. Health insurance and other benefits have been extended to unmarried domestic partners regardless of sexual orientation in Iowa, some major cities, and some big corporations. And this was not the first time that the city council passed such an ordinance that was blocked by the courts for the same reason. Why did the city council just drop the issue and not pass an ordinance to extend benefits to all unmarried domestic partners? I figured it was just a cynical ploy to get votes on this issue from the gay community without actually delivering anything. If I were Gary Schiff, I wouldn't brag about that too much. Disclaimer: I am a supporter of Dave Bicking. -Doug Mann, King Field - REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
