How do you feel about the "Family Values" "Anti-Gay" ballot? (school districts, salary)

[mistabinks]

Of course the issue was to block benefits gay employees. My point with the wording is that many many people were not voting on the issue but instead on the affect it would have on retirees. That should not happen.

[Twain Shakespeare]

What outraged me was the inclusion of the phrase "in the name of family values". Who is going to vote for family values, aside from those who have learned from hard experience it is a code phrase for "we want you dead!"?

[HookTheBrotherUp]

Originally Posted by alov0303

wording or not - it was intended to block benefits to same sex domestic partners which is wrong. Also, if we want El Paso to be considered as something other than a second rate city, then we had better not vote like it is. So lets tabulate our national exposure for the year:

Don't hold the city's outlook hostage just because a majority does not agree with you.

The issue to deny benefits to "partners" is neither right, nor wrong. It just is. Just as a PAC was formed to approve it, where was the PAC to disapprove it? It is an equal playing field, it just so happens the people who did not want it prevailed. Democracy is great.

I don't care what others do with their lives; I don't care if crack addicts want more crack, but just because crack addicts want more crack does not mean that they should get it. If all the voters in a city came out and passed an ordinance that every Tuesday, crack heads will get free crack, then I would have to live with that, but it would not mean that I would approve.

The same goes for gays and lesbians; they can do what they want, but do not force those who disagree to accept, and understand that there is a difference between acceptance and tolerance.

Also, if this is so important, then those who want it will regroup, learn from their failure, and produce a better plan next time, it is not the final answer, and laws and ordinances can be undone just as they are created. I'm politically involved, and one thing I've noticed in the last eight years, or so, is that those who complain the loudest when something fails are usually the ones who did not lift a finger to rally for the cause, and wanted it dropped in their lap. I'm not saying anyone who has replied so far has, but if you are guilty, the bell tolls for you.

I don't live in El Paso anymore, BTW. Good luck in 2012, you need to start now!

[malamute]

For one El Paso isn't especially religious nor family values with all the strip clubs and nudie bars. Maybe because taxes here are already incredibly high, the cost was more the factor.

Who is included when they say "domestic partners", does that mean you can put any roommate, any household member on your insurance? Or do you have to prove you're having sex with them? And then would you have to actually live with them? Couldn't you just add siblings and friends to your plan if they want insurnace but aren't working?

[mistabinks]

Originally Posted by malamute

For one El Paso isn't especially religious nor family values with all the strip clubs and nudie bars. Maybe because taxes here are already incredibly high, the cost was more the factor.

I don't think one thing cancels out the other. That just shows there is variety here. Some people are church goers. Some like a good lap dance. This is what I have been saying for years on this forum. El Paso isn't one thing.

Originally Posted by malamute

Who is included when they say "domestic partners", does that mean you can put any roommate, any household member on your insurance? Or do you have to prove you're having sex with them? And then would you have to actually live with them? Couldn't you just add siblings and friends to your plan if they want insurnace but aren't working?

That is a very good question.

[1979]

Originally Posted by alov0303

Proposition: Benefits controversy hits ballot - El Paso Times

Unbelievable! I didn't realize how bias articles are allowed to appear in the El Paso Times. Apparently, it's OK for gay tax dollars to support the pensions of straights, but not visa versa. Also, gay tax dollars supporting schools, and subsidies often limited to straight families.

I wonder how El Paso citizens would react to a similar proposition as to the one in AZ requiring law enforcement, to actually enforce current immigration laws with illegals? How about all the children we are forced to educate that are not only illegal, but live in Mexico. No other minorities have to go through what gays go through when it comes to equality.

[Gary Siete]

Unbelievable! I didn't realize how bias articles are allowed to appear in the El Paso Times.

I was surprised in the past (past elections) when The Times editorials took a strong conservative view and research at that time indicated that the editorials & endorsements were pushed on them from their parent company - MediaNews/Gannett.

Companies give benefits to employees to keep them happy and loyal and to keep the company competitive in hiring. Restricting benefits to married spouses and their dependents will have minimal effect on city hall finances & on taxes but will have a big effect on those employees affected. It's a petty supposedly moral-high-ground move that nobody will notice on their tax bill.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by mistabinks

I don't think one thing cancels out the other. That just shows there is variety here. Some people are church goers. Some like a good lap dance. This is what I have been saying for years on this forum. El Paso isn't one thing.



That is a very good question.

Yes - there are some very religious people here but also many not very religious people here, same as everywhere but El Paso is not an especially religious city.

I think the reason people voted as they did could have a lot more to do with the costs than anything else.

Just like many people aren't pleased with the new law that allows many adults to be added to insurance plans, up to age 26 and they can be adults with children of their own - and those children can also be added.

Without actually knowing the reasons various voters had, it can't be claimed this had anything to do with religion, traditional values or anything. Maybe some people believe that adults should work and get their own insurance benefits but might believe that spouses staying home taking care of children are a different matter.

And - again, would you have to prove you have sex with a domestic partner or could they just be roommates or good friends that want in on your insurance and other benefits? Or adult siblings or any one at all?

Or maybe the domestic partners work but their employers don't provide insurance so they want in on their partner's city provided benefits that the taxpayers provide.

Maybe more employers should be encouraged to offer insurance plans.

[wehotex]

Originally Posted by 1979

Unbelievable! I didn't realize how bias articles are allowed to appear in the El Paso Times. Apparently, it's OK for gay tax dollars to support the pensions of straights, but not visa versa. Also, gay tax dollars supporting schools, and subsidies often limited to straight families.

I wonder how El Paso citizens would react to a similar proposition as to the one in AZ requiring law enforcement, to actually enforce current immigration laws with illegals? How about all the children we are forced to educate that are not only illegal, but live in Mexico. No other minorities have to go through what gays go through when it comes to equality.

Exactly what is wrong with a city providing equal benefits for equal work? why should one set of employees get the gravy train and the others get dog food? Perhaps the City should look into paying gays a higher salary since they don't get all of the extra perks on the back end? It's only fair.
In answer to malumute's question about how to prove DP, it's fairly easy.

Many major companies already have specific requirements to prove DP. The city could follow the same guidelines.

[atrabilius]

We need to outlaw all public votes on whether or not people should have rights.