Previous Posts
Stormtrooper Manuevering
Va. AG Recount More Lawmakers May Be Up Abramoff Creek Gift Ideas For Christmas Democrats Reaching Out To Veterans Open Minds, Open Topics Canadian Government Falls Fascism Is Coming? Duke Cunningham (R-CA) Resigns Trimming the Fat |
KyDemocrat had a post on her Democratic State blog today stating she received a letter from Miami University stating the university was being sued. The reason is Miami offers domestic partner benefits for its employees. Since Ohio recently enacted an amendment to their state constitution prohibiting gay marriage in all it's forms.
State Rep. Thomas Brinkman Jr. elected to file a suit on behalf of the state. Miami is a top notch institution and believes domestic partner benefits are needed in order to attract top notch talent to work at the university. Brinkman feels otherwise. The toughest part of this issue is that it's the classic wedge. They had people voting in 2004 who'd never voted before...like the Amish. They never vote and they have a culture of not voting but they can't "let them fags get married." I don't know the wording of the amendment so I don't know how this works. If the amendment states that no household arrangement other than traditional male/female marriage qualifies for anything, there may be a problem. In any event, there may not be a solution other than hope the current employees were there before the amendment was passed in which case they may be protected by being grandfathered in. No ex post facto you know. posted by Stithmeister @ 7:39 PM 1 Comments: Links to this post:
The ironic thing about this is that Brinkman's lawyer is on record already as stating that these benefits do not violate the marriage amendment. There is part of that message I received: (and why do people here have to HATE?)
We want to reassure you that Miami has a compelling case for providing domestic partner benefits and that the lawsuit is without merit. We are confident that our program, effective July 1, 2004, does not violate the Marriage Amendment. The official Explanation and Argument in Support of the Marriage Amendment filed with the amendment prior to its passage on November 2, 2004 provides: “Issue 1 does not interfere in any way with government benefits granted to persons in non-marital homosexual relationships, so long as the government does not grant those benefits to such persons specifically for the reason that the relationship is one that seeks to imitate marriage.” Indeed, one of the local lawyers representing Representative Brinkman, Mr. David Langdon, is already on record as saying that the Marriage Amendment would not rescind domestic partner benefits offered by public universities and cities. Post a Comment << Home |
About Me
I'm currently working in the telecomm industry but one of my passions is still politics. Weekly PollAtom Site Feed <
Ky Democratic Party MoveOn.Org Democratic Party Kentucky Dems Air AMerica Radio DemocraticUnderground Ky. Stonewall Democrats American Progress Media Matters BooneCntyDems Kentucky Blogs
BluegrassDemocrats Long Way Home Bluegrass Report Bluegrass Roots KyKurmudgeon Democratic State Kentucky Democrat The Bridge WireCan National Blogs
Arriana Huffington Eschaton DailyKos Talking Points CrooksandLiars MyDD Rick Howell Speaks The Daou Report Steve Gilliard Jesus General Attytude TPMCafe majikthise The Hotline IdealisticPragmastic Battle Panda AmericaBlog Kentucky News
Courier Journal Lexington Herald-Leader Messenger Enquirer WEKU Ky. Enquirer WHAS-11 WLEX-18 WKYT-27 WTVQ-36 WLKY-32 WAVE-3 GlasgowDailyTimes National News
New York Times Washington Post Christian Science Monitor NPR CNN NewsUnfiltered Los Angeles Times ABC News CBS News Newsweek |
posted by <\$BlogBacklinkAuthor\$> \@ <\$BlogBacklinkDateTime\$>