McIlheran, September 30, 2006, on why it would be OK to ban gay marriage in Wisconsin:
And if we're still worried that companies will have to cut off benefits for unmarried partners, we can ask whether that's happened in any of the 19 states that already have such amendments.McIlheran, November 20, 2007, on why we shouldn't allow same sex benefits at MPS:
It hasn't. Business groups, benefits experts, human resources consultants, even anti-amendment group Fair Wisconsin will tell you that no company has had to cut off benefits because of an amendment. And no one's tried to make a company do so.
Some government employers have run into lawsuits over benefits for same-sex couples. The straightforward answer, say lawyers who filed those suits, is for cities and schools not to premise taxpayer-funded benefits on a particular kind of unmarried relationship. Simply offer an employee-plus-one option open to lovers or disabled adult brothers equally, as some employers already do, and local governments won't be recognizing some unmarried relationships as particularly special.
Milwaukee School Board member Jennifer Morales wants the schools, for benefits purposes, to treat people who are shacking up as if they were married -- "domestic partner" benefits, it's called.For a more detailed account of McIlheran's self-contradictory and outrageous commentary, According to Nick lays it out.
It's supposed to be the epitome of progress. Morales says it's a matter of fairness:
"Fairness for employees is fairness for employees," she told the Journal Sentinel. "It's not about me, it's not about Tina."
Tina would be the woman to whom Morales says she's married. If the schools approve this deal, Morales and Tina Owen, who works at an MPS charter school, would be considered spouses for benefits purposes.
You must be an MPS graduate.
ReplyDeleteThere's a clear difference between what P-Mac allowed for (a "+1" policy) and what Morales wants.
Unless, of course, you cannot read.
You're right Dad, it's not the same. PaddyMac's suggestion would be more expensive, and would increase governmental involvement as it would start interfering with other benefits.
ReplyDeleteMuch simpler and cheaper to have done the right thing in the first place. But that wouldn't fit into the right's dogma, would it?
Perhaps it would be more expensive, but it would not force taxpayers to specifically subsidize cohabitants engaged in illicit sex.
ReplyDeleteAs to "interfering with other bennies," you'll have to explain that.