Posted on 12/06/2004 5:12:15 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Court OKs benefits for same-sex life partners of city employees
DAVID B. CARUSO
Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA - In a victory for gay couples, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled Monday that Philadelphia has a right to give city employees in same-sex "life partnerships" the same type of worker benefits now enjoyed only by married couples.
The justices overturned a lower court, which ruled two years ago that city lawmakers had overstepped their authority and created "a new marital status" by recognizing same-sex relationships. Only the state, that court said, had a right to regulate marriage.
Writing for the high court, Justice Russell M. Nigro said Philadelphia hadn't created a new type of marriage at all, or trampled on state sovereignty, when it decided in 1998 to let the long-term romantic partners of gay and lesbian city employees participate in city health and benefits plans.
"We do not believe that the city's mere designation of "life partnership" as a "marital status" demonstrates that it was equating life partnerships with state-sanctioned marriage," Nigro wrote. "Indeed, even though the legislation affords life partners certain limited rights and benefits that spouses also enjoy, those rights and benefits are but a small fraction of what marriage affords to its participants."
Even with the law, he noted, same-sex couples still wouldn't have the right to file joint tax returns, or avoid testifying against each other in a criminal trial, or automatically receive workers compensation when their partner dies.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Doesn't this mean that any pair that decides to engage in a "life partnership" would qualify. For example, I work for the city and I have a platonic friend that needs insurance. Wouldn't I be able to attain insurance and benefits for my friend under this program? I mean we are life long friends after all.
Don't bet on it.
About 5 years ago my company instituted benefits for "domestic partners".
The gay crowd was all enthusiastic, but come to find out, if you had a live in girlfriend, even if she'd been there for 10 years, would NOT qualify.
If this is not discrimination, I don't know what is.
Yes it would, and that's a big problem. Though there are "marriages of convenience" between men and women for similar goals, they are often tightly scrutinized for authenticity (e.g. marriages for immigration purposes).
A "life partnership" could be very causual and probably never questioned.
ping to L.J.
How about by doggy?? Will she qualify???
John
So this is only for Gay people and not strait folks?
Special privilages because they chose an unethical lifestyle?
How about by doggy?? Will she qualify???
John
======
Only if the name is "Elton" John !!! ;-))
City of "Brotherly" Love bump.
I am sure that if they were allowed to have civil unions that weren't as convenient as “domestic partnerships” recognized by certain organizations, then they would be happy too.
As for those who want to enter into “domestic partnership” with a friend of the same sex, go ahead. It is not that different to a marriage of convenience which have been going on for millennia, and in case of royalty, were state sanctioned.
Apparently, only if it's a he-
I have no problem with that as long as, if the "life partner" and the employee ever part ways, the "life partner" gets to keep half of the employee's stuff......And alimony.
Homosexual Agenda Ping - more from Philadelphia, which used to be known as the "city of brotherly love" and is now known as the "city of same sex sodomy".
:-(
There has been lots of nastiness from Philadelphia and the "gay" agenda. This is just more dribbles from the same fetid swamp. Aided and abetted, you'll notice, by leftist judges.
Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
I have a question. Since my sister is queer, but we have the same set of parents, why is she a minority and I'm not?
Why is it that when I wear my 'Straight Pride' t-shirt, I'm homophobic? But when she wears her 'Gay Pride' t-shirt, she is not heterophobic?
This is a group of people who define themselves by their sexuality and nothing else. Every form I fill out does not include a box for 'Queer'. If it did, would a gay Mexican be more of a minority than a straight one?
I am tired of having the gay agenda shoved down my throat (no pun intended).
In reality there is no such thing as a "homosexual". Everyone has had, at one time or another, weird, perverted, sick or illicit desires. If we understand the value and reality of "right" and "wrong", and especially if we also understand that there is more to life than personal gratification, then we will not entertain such desires.
A "homosexual" is someone who gave in to same sex desires, and is now wallowing in them and reinforcing them.
And funny thing, when unwanted desires are neither entertained or acted upon, they gradually go away. But when desires are followed and acted upon, and meditated on, they not only get stronger and stronger, they often morph into even weirder, worse desires.
The left has adopted the cause of "gay" rights as their own, along with the right to kill ubnorn babies. Thoughtful people should ask why.
Okay, okay... before everybody flips out, whenever I hear this "domestic partner" stuff I think of my two maiden aunts who lived together for 40 years before one of them died, and it makes total sense to me for one of them to have been able to use their insurance benefit to pay for the other one... who gives a schumer who it is you're paying for, really.
(However NTS nothing in the preceding should be in anyway construed to in any way imply that fags are not completely revolting miscegenated depraved vile subhuman scum etc. yawn blah bore ad nauseum, of curse...) (or at least the ones on DU are...)
Excellent example and why not? At my place of work, there is a provision for "domestic partnerships" of both the hetero and homosexual varieties. In France, the concept of a "domestic partnership" would include your aunts' situation. They lived to together for years, shared expenses and companionship, etc. They certainly stayed together longer than almost all shack-ups and many marriages.
Yet.
And it's still the city of brotherly love. It just has taken on a new meaning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.