You are incorrect Doug. The city's extension of domestic partnership benefits to it's employees was overturned by the courts in the early 90's under a state law that had been passed earlier regulating the receipt of healthcare benefits to immediate family members, defined in state law as those related by marriage, blood, or adoption and limited to spouses and dependent children.
My understanding is that this law came into being because a small town in rural Minnesota went bankrupt when a town employee placed a large number of his extended family of relatives onto the town's healthcare plan and the law was designed to prevent such abuses in the future at a time prior to when domestic partner benefits were even a concept of discourse. Nonetheless, the state courts ruled that this law had to be amended or changed by the state legislature in order for the city to be able to offer domestic partner benefits to their employees and the city has lobbied the state for such a change ever since. In my opinion, it is another example of the extent of a lack of local control of local government imposed by our state government and both supporters of decentralized government, as well as those who favor domestic partner benefits(or even broader designated beneficiary benefits) should support the ability of local jurisdictions to enact them. It's important that local governments be able to act as laboratories for new ideas to emerge in response to local concerns. Nearly all historic political changes from various voting rights iniativies, civil rights laws, and other expansions of rights have begun at the local level and moved upwards-- not the other way around. Domestic partnership benefits are hardly a new idea anymore but they were at the time the city passed the ordinance. The state should set baseline minimums but shouldn't close the door to localities responding to their populations expressed concerns in ways that don't violate baseline rights of community members which should be protected by the state. The Minneapolis domestic partnership registry has no limitations on the gender of the individuals involved. The domestic partner rights iniatives of which Gary spoke included expanding the rights of registered domestic partners in the city to include - nondiscrimination in fees for things such as club memberships and rental application fees vis a vis married couples - changes to housing ordinances to declare domestic partners to be a family unit so that domestic partners renting to a third party would be in the same position under the ordinance as a married couple renting to a third party and effecting other regulatory issues in relation to households of domestic partners - adding nondiscrimination protections in regards to an individual or couples status regarding domestic partnership registration - adding a domestic partnership reciprocity statement so that any couple whose relationship is registered in another jurisdiction is entitled to and secures the rights of domestic partners registered in Minneapolis. This way visitors, newcomers, and others who are married in Canada, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Massachusetts, or who are parties to a civil union in Vermont or Connecticutt, or who are reciprocal beneficiaries in Hawaii, or who are registered domestic partners in California, New Jersey, the District of Columbia or one of the 100 plus cities in the U.S. that have such registries, or whose relationship is registered under similiar legal categories in Argentina or other jurisdictions are recognized as registered domestic partners and granted the rights of registered domestic partners in the city of Minneapolis. --- The city also passed an ordinance requiring contractors with city of a certain size to provide domestic partnership benefits to their employees and specifically requires that such benefits be offerred regardless of the sex or gender of parties to the domestic partnership. To my knowledge, Minneapolis was the first jurisdiction to require that domestic partnership benefits be made available to some contractor's employees without limitation in regards to sex or gender of the parties to the domestic partnership. A similiar ordinance in San Francisco and New York City where limited to same sex domestic partners of employees. FYI- I am a Dave Bicking supporter as well. Dave was unanimously endorsed Wed. night by the Lavender Greens of Minnesota joining Cam Gordon as Green candidates to share the distinction of being endorsed by the glbtiq caucs of the Green Party after filling out a lengthy questionaire and meeting with numerous caucus members followed by deliberation by caucus members. Nonetheless, I am thankful to Gary for his work on the above issues as well as his support of the repeal of the city restroom ordinance which was creating problems for transgender individuals in our community. I believe that Dave Bicking would carry on Gary's tradition of activism on glbtiq issues and he has already confirmed support for a variety of iniatives in his questionaire and meetings with Lavender Greens which I believe attest to both his committment and willingness to working on these issues and keeping the city moving forward as regards glbtiq community concerns. David Strand Loring Park Co-Chair MN Lavender Greens --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 > __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 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
