Legislature Strikes Ordinances Requiring Domestic Partner Benefits (GA)

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/custom/blogs/georgia/entries/2005/03/17/legislature_strikes_ordinances_requiring_domestic_partner_benefits.html

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A proposal that would void an Atlanta city ordinance requiring associations such as the Druid Hills Golf Club to extend marriage benefits to gay couples cleared its final hurdle in the General Assembly on Thursday.

House Rules Committee Chairman Earl Ehrhart (R-Powder Springs) introduced the bill, which would prevent local governments across Georgia from enacting laws requiring organizations to extend domestic benefits to gay couples.

Sen. John Wiles (R-Marietta) carried the bill in the Senate.

“There’s no right for a city government, state government or county government to provide benefits to unmarried persons,” Wiles said from the Senate well.

Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta) said that legislators were using the issue of domestic benefits for gay couples to pander to voters.

“We use the term ‘local control’ in education and law enforcement,” Fort said. “But when it comes to discrimination … we don’t want local control. When it comes to the city of Atlanta, local control means nothing. It means nothing at all. It’s the height of hypocrisy.”

:cry: I hate those Republican SOBs.

on edit: How can legislators who don't live in the city of Atlanta tell Atlanta what they can and cannot do? Bastards.

Ruling goes against same-sex benefits

Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as Michigan voters did with Proposal 2 in November, also signals the end of health care and other benefits for the same-sex partners of public employees in the state, according to an opinion issued Wednesday by Attorney General Mike Cox.

The opinion came in response to a question about benefits for employees of the City of Kalamazoo. The same legal theories would apply to public schools and universities which offer same-sex benefits, said an official in the Attorney General's Office who asked not to be identified.

In the absence of a contrary opinion from a court, the attorney general's interpretation of the law is generally binding on state agencies.

"The bottom line is that the law is what the law is," Cox said. "This is the logical outcome of what the voters approved."

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay17e_20050317.htm

Meanwhile, polygamist law enforcement officials in CO and UT keep their jobs. I wonder if ALL their wives are covered on their policies.

...if there were a concentrated movement or effort among the gay community to find opposite-sex "marriage of convenience" partners to match up folks with benefits to those who need benefits, with side contractual "prenup" agreements that the persons would agree to transfer assets and benefits where appropriate to the real partners in the event of an emergency.

Let's return marriage to what it truly, originally was - binding legal contracts between families for the transfer of assets and property. Love had little to do with it.

From the Republican...
“There’s no right for a city government, state government or county government to provide benefits to unmarried persons,” Wiles said from the Senate well.
This wouldn't have to be a problem, if gays could marry, would it? Pretty good...make marriage for them illegal, then say there's no right to provide benefits to unmarried persons. This is an equal rights issue, and what the fundies think about gay relationships shouldn't play a role in it.

I disapprove of some people who are immature, selfish, and lazy, but if they're hetero, I still don't have the right to dictate whether they can marry or not. These people make me sick.

Gay couples who want to marry can't.

Straight people who DON'T want to marry are force-fed this federal "healthy family" stuff, and there is an assumption that if a woman would only marry some man, any man, she could get off welfare.

Controlling money, jobs, the environment, and the media is not enough. They want to control sexuality and who relates to whom.

Well, I've got two words for them.

J E F F G A N N O N

It's a very personal issue with me, because my daughter's very best friend, they've known each other for 24 years now, since she was 14...he's gay, and in a very loving, very long term relationship. His big complaint isn't whether his union is called marriage or not; he just wants the same rights as the rights given to any spouse in making medical decisions, inheritance, spousal rights, etc.

He says that if the wing nuts don't want to call it marriage, he'll settle for Domestic Partnership, although he would prefer marriage. A loving, kind, funny, compassionate human being is being denied human rights because some people want to speculate on what he and his partner do sexually. Message to them: If you're so interested in f**king, go f**k yourselves.

Try to prevent a woman from staying in an abusive relationship? Sorry, just pray those black eyes away, have as many babies as he wants, and know your place.