Salt Lake domestic partnership rules to inc. Hetero., relatives, roommates

[papau]

Salt Lake City Council members displeased with Mayor Rocky Anderson's domestic partner plan have enlarged it to include other adults living with city employees. According to the AP,
a majority of council members objected strenuously when Anderson issued an executive order last summer, bypassing the council and establishing the domestic partner benefits. Under the new proposal to provide health-insurance benefits for city employees' "adult designees," the designee would have to have lived with the employee for at least a year, and the two would have to be financially connected. The proposal would include gay and heterosexual domestic partners as well as relatives and roommates. A formal vote is expected February 7.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_377.php

Salt Lake Lawmakers Squabble over Domestic Partner Benefits
September 27, 2005 – Salt Lake City lawmakers have decided to challenge an executive order issued by Mayor Rocky Anderson giving same-sex partners of city employees health benefits.
Offended they were not invited to help draft the controversial plan, members of the City Council are devising a competing insurance package to supersede Anderson's, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

While a majority of council members say they are interested in providing insurance benefits to domestic partners, they also want to include employees' other significant others, including siblings, parents or friends.

For his part, Anderson opposes the proposal, saying it is a way for the council to avoid the controversial issue of sexual orientation. "This is all being motivated by trying to dodge the issue of equality for those who have a different marital status or different sexual orientation," Anderson told the Tribune.

Councilwoman Jill Remington Love is behind the council plan, saying it is a way to strengthen all types of households. According to the newspaper, Love asked Anderson twice to delay signing the executive order.

There was time, she noted, because Anderson's plan won't go into effect until a judge rules on whether domestic-partner benefits are legal - a ruling requested by the city's insurance administrator, PEHP, which believes the benefits might buck the state's traditional marriage law (See Utah State Agency Seeks Court Domestic Partner Benefit Decision).<snip>

[MrModerate]

1. This is insane . . .

And a potent argument in favor of same-sex marriage. It is not appropriate for a city to have to extend health benefits to a person's roommate. While the entire health-care-delivery system in this country is profoundly screwed up, the basic (current) premise for provision of such benefits -- historically and (IB) legally -- is that the worker has a family to support. Roommates ain't family, and this sort of program has the potential to sink city governments under a tide of red ink wherever it's applied.

Which is why I have long been opposed to domestic partner benefits while being a strong proponent of same-sex marriage. The benefits and obligations of marriage are a reasonable standard for determining eligibility under the "family" rule I made up (above).

And yes, the Council in this case is just trying to avoid touching the same-sex marriage idea, by coming up with something that makes no fiscal or societal sense at all.

[davidinalameda]

2. the way I see is that it's a start

the whole thing is crap--why limit this to humans--how about my cats?

the Mayor is right--it is an attempt by opponents to dodge the domestic partnership issue--it's reducing partners to the status of "friend"

but as I said, it's a start