NEWS
Local
Mind, Body & Soul
Sports
Archives
OPINION
Editorials
Letters
Columnists
Message Boards
A&E
The Gay Agenda
Calendar
Movies
Books
LIVING
Horoscopes
Comics
Classifieds
Obituaries
Salt Lake METRO
Subscribe
Advertise
Contact Us
|
 |
Local News
Salt Lake County Votes on
Domestic Partner Benefits
After a lengthy and emotional discussion, the Salt Lake County Council struck down a measure that could have provided benefits to the domestic partners of county employees. The measure would have given funeral leave and health, life, and dental insurance to domestic partners in long-term relationships. Over 50 cities currently have similar measures in place, including Phoenix, Denver, Atlanta, Chicago and Ann Arbor.
Introduced by councilwoman Jenny Wilson, a Democrat, the proposal would have required the support of at least one Republican to pass. Tuesday’s vote divided along party lines with the four Democrat council members in favor and the five Republicans opposed.
Both sides agreed that the cost of funding the proposal was negligible at between $37,000 and $74,000, so the debate focused mainly on the symbolic meaning of giving benefits to those in gay relationships. Republican Councilman Mark Crockett commented that he did not support the measure because it might send the message that Salt Lake County supports gay marriage, which was defeated in last year’s vote on Amendment 3. Many were disappointed at that stance, as Crockett was viewed as the Republican most likely to vote in favor of the measure.
In making their decision, the council did not provide an open public forum, but did listen to remarks from Jan Donchess, chairwoman of the county’s gay and lesbian employee association. At a later general council meeting held after the measure’s defeat, a public forum was available, allowing two individuals to express their points of view on domestic partner benefits. One, a Sandy schoolteacher with six children, expressed his dismay at the possibility of queers getting the same rights as married couples.
“These individuals have made lifestyle choices that have great consequences with the destruction of the family… It’s not a proper choice or a good choice for society as a whole,” he said.
The second speaker, a Salt Lake County employee who wished to remain anonymous for fear of professional repercussions, attended with her partner and encouraged the council to “level the playing field” by granting benefits to domestic partners. She also said that her partner is currently without health insurance because of downsizing at the non-profit organization where she works.
“If my partner gets sick, we could lose our house,” the employee said. She went on to say that she views part of Salt Lake County’s mission as providing health care to as many people as possible.
“I hope we would seek out any opportunity to give benefits to uninsured people. This is a relatively cheap way for them to do that,” she said.
Upon hearing that the measure had not passed, the employee expressed disappointment. “It seemed like the arguments they had had nothing to do with benefits,” the woman said. “They had to do with gay marriage. I don’t think this is the way the County should treat its employees. My partner had no insurance, and we can’t buy it anywhere because she doesn’t fit into the uninsured pool. We could become financially bankrupt.”
The employee went on to thank councilman Joe Hatch and councilwoman Wilson, who were the measure’s strongest supporters. She also feels that one day the measure will succeed.
“This is an issue of equality,” she said. “This is a human issue. It’s about being fair to everyone, not just certain employees.”
Councilwoman Wilson had similar hopes about the future of domestic partner benefits. “We’re not like groundhogs. We don’t do things over and over again, but if there were a change to the policy or the body [the County Council’s members], I would introduce it again.”
A “call to action” campaign was started after the vote by the Human Rights Campaign, The Center and Equality Utah, garnering hundreds of emails and phone calls, many of which called the dissenting councilmembers bigots and homophobes. By “being denied substantial benefits such as health insurance coverage for their partners [unmarried employees] are simply paid less than their married counterparts,” the email blitz said.
Reprinted with permission of Planet Out Netwoks
|
|
LOCAL NEWS STORIES:
|
