Opposition to Teeth Cleaning Reveals True Agenda

Assembly Representative Mark Gottlieb is publicly criticizing an insurance plan for state employees because it allows domestic partners to offer their families dental care. The plan doesn't cost anything for the state; employees pay 100 percent for their premiums.

Gottlieb's criticism reflects the agenda of lawmakers who back the ban on civil unions and marriage. As Rep. Mark Pocan says on his new blog, they're not just opposed to marriage for gay couples. They oppose any single legal protection or benefit for gay couples. This was never about "protecting" or "defending" anyone's marriage.

Backers of the ban keep talking out of both sides of their mouth. They claim their amendment wouldn't block domestic partner benefits, yet they consistently attack any effort to provide them.

They blocked Governor Doyle's effort to offer equal benefits to UW employees, and they enlisted the help of a conservative Christian legal group to represent the entire Legislature in a legal fight over equal benefits.

In today's Wisconsin State Journal, Gottlieb says, "It should be clear that the Legislature hasn't sanctioned domestic partnership benefits for state employees. The decision to recognize those relationships should not have been made administratively."

Maybe what he means is that "those relationships" shouldn't be recognized. Period.

Even when it means "they" can buy into a plan that lets their families get a good teeth cleaning or have a cavity filled.

Tags:

4 Comments:

At 10:07 AM, Blogger Ingrid Ankerson said...

Amen to that, Josh.

 
At 7:18 PM, Anonymous Tamara said...

Great headline!

Getting these benefits are easier and easier in the private sector. My partner started a new job yesterday; two weeks ago when the offer came she asked about DP health insurance. This is a company with 20 employees. They didn't have it, but checked with the provider (P Plus) and got it right away. Same with dental (Delta). A year ago we had to struggle to get DP benefits through PPlus, at an employer with more than 20 employees. So employers are getting more used to this, and so are the insurance companies.

Change the world, one employer at a time!

Tamara

 
At 4:54 PM, Anonymous Kent Walker said...

That is great for you Tamara and you are right, many more employers are offering this. However, if this amendment is successful, you could lose those benefits if the employer feels that they must abide by the Constitution. Also, state employers are more bound by following "the law" and thus, we could see many more of these benefits disappearing. Ultimately I think this is the goal of the amendment supporters, they just don't want to say it out loud and truly be seen for what they are. Make sure your friends and family understand what this amendment can do.

 
At 10:45 AM, Anonymous George said...

This does indeed point out the hypocrisy of the anti-marriage and groups. They repeatedly say the proposed amendment won't prevent or infringe on an organizations ability to offer benefits to unmarried partners, yet continue to fight every attempt to do so. Here's a link to another attempt to eliminate domestic partner benefits in Ohio, Lawsuit Challenges Ohio School's Domestic Partner Benefits Program

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website