Will State Workers in Arizona Be Able to Get Partner Benefits?
Wednesday April 2, 2008
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano's Regulatory Review Council voted unanimously to grant domestic partner benefits to state employees. Critics said the new benefits rule changes undermine the institution of marriage. Gay and lesbian parters applaud the measure. Opinions about same-sex marriages aside, some people might react negatively to the news from strictly a budgetary standpoint. The Governor's office states that the cost of offering domestic partner benefits would be outweighed by the fact that Arizona would be more competitive in attracting and retaining top talent.
This new directive means that beginning October 1, 2008 state employees in unmarried families can sign up for medical, dental, and other benefit coverage options. Dependents of domestic partners also will qualify. It is estimated that less than 1,000 employees working for the State of Arizona would be impacted by the rule change. Although some state employees in domestic partnerships in other states are already afforded such benefits, less than half the states do so at this time.
So, is this a done deal? I expect that litigation to overturn the decision will be forthcoming. Time will tell.
What do you think? Should the State of Arizona grant benefits to their employees who are domestic partners, but not technically married?
1) Yes. Same sex couples and other types of families should receive access to the same benefits as married couples.
2) No. If a couple is not legally married under Arizona law, they should not receive benefits.
Comments
You know, I consider myself to be politically and socially conservative on many issues. That being said, I think it’s ridiculous to suggest that giving rights to domestic partners (gay or straight) would somehow take away from the sanctity of marriage. In my opinion, there are far bigger issues threatening the sanctity of marriage than that.
You know, the “cost of domestic partnership benefits” is really a red herring. If those employees were to turn around and get married they would instantly become eligible for a variety of family benefits offered in the state employees’ benefit programs. And, ironically, I would bet that those same people who complain about the cost of providing domestic partners with benefits would be the first people to cheer and throw rice at the wedding despite the resulting increased cost to the taxpayers.
Being in a monogomous hetero relationship with my girlfriend of 7 years, I have something to say. Time and again, we see situations that expose the unfairness of things in our society. While a compelling arguement can be made that to ‘enjoy’ the benefits of marriage, one should actually be ‘married’, my girlfriend and I accept that some people are just not very willing to see the facts.
We have both been in diasterous marriages several years ago and now find ourselves in a complete and fulfilling relationship that goes so far beyond our previous marriages that we feel no need to get ‘official’ sanction for our union.
Unfortunately, we often have to tell businesses that we are married or one of us is exculded from the courtesies extended to married couples.
My employer int he rpivate sector would not grant us health coverage for my partner, even though the insurance company let slip that they would be happpy to provide it and the decision was up to the employer. I find this an arbitrary and hurtful choicem because it exculdes a growing class of employees in our country.
This issue is one that will continue to impact our lives, all of us, until we can look at people and not spend all our time labelling and judging each other.
I applaud Gov. Napolitano for the courage to correct a wrong and make our state provide fairly for their employees and their families, regardless of how that family is constituted.
Like everyone else, this is just my opinion…..