Representative Mark Pocan is an @ss. And when he doesn't get his gay way he lashes out at Christians. Every time.
Posted on 05/24/2005 10:35:44 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Rob Carpick says he thought he might persuade state lawmakers to allow the University of Wisconsin to begin offering domestic partner benefits on the basis of simple economics.
So Carpick, who is gay, wrote the co-chairman of the Legislature's budget committee earlier this month to explain that he's brought in more than $2.5 million in research grants during the five years he's been an assistant professor of engineering at the UW-Madison.
In an e-mail to Rep. Dean Kaufert, R-Neenah, Carpick noted that Gov. Jim Doyle estimated the cost of providing full benefits to domestic partners - unmarried heterosexual couples as well as gay and lesbian partners - at about $500,000 annually.
That total, he pointed out, "is less than the amount of money I annually bring to the state of Wisconsin through my research grants already. I am ONE person. Please do the math."
Carpick never heard back from Kaufert. But he says the finance committee's action - a 13-3 vote Monday against Doyle's proposal - came as a slap in the face.
"It sends the message that they take gay and lesbian employees for granted," he said in an interview following the committee's vote.
"It sends the message that these specific legislators are more interested in pandering to discriminatory policies instead of trying to look forward and put in place something that many other universities and companies have implemented years ago."
Doyle included the proposed benefits in his budget at the request of the UW Board of Regents, which made it one of their top priorities for attracting and keeping faculty. The UW-Madison is now the only Big Ten university that does not offer domestic partner benefits.
Carpick said that in his own case, it costs an extra $200 a month for his partner Carlos Chan, who is currently on leave from the UW, to get health insurance coverage through the state. Should Chan leave the UW permanently, the coverage would rise to $400 a month for a year. After that, the rates through a private insurer would be much higher, Carpick said.
When Carpick came to the UW five years ago, he said he knew that the institution didn't provide domestic partner benefits, "but I was naively optimistic that I'd see them implemented."
Carpick received his Ph.D. from the University of California-Berkeley, which had the benefits, and came to Madison after doing postgraduate work in Albuquerque, N.M., at the Sandia National Laboratories, which also offers them.
While he is not currently considering offers at other institutions, Carpick said the committee's action will be a factor in deciding whether to stay.
"If they don't believe that people will leave over this issue, they're wrong," said Carpick, pointing to at least three recent faculty members that have left because of a lack of domestic partner benefits. "They are just out of touch with reality."
Carpick said he chose Wisconsin - where he has won several teaching awards and has begun partnerships with local businesses - because of the state's historic commitment to the Wisconsin Idea, sharing the university's knowledge with citizens.
"It sets this state apart from so many schools - there's that sense of public duty that's so real," he said.
But he said it's difficult to underestimate just how much the committee's action stings. "I am personally just offended and upset by this insulting policy. Why should I be considered to be less valuable to the university than anybody else?" he asked.
Kaufert and other Republicans on the committee argued that the state couldn't afford the additional expense during the current budget crisis. But the committee rejected a motion by Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, to change state law to allow the benefits without providing any money for the expanded coverage.
Pocan accused Republicans of knuckling under to religious extremists. He cited a decision by Republican leaders last week to hire the Alliance Defense Fund, which is linked to the conservative group Focus on the Family, to fight a lawsuit filed against the state by gay and lesbian state employees who want benefits for their partners.
"You're going to have plenty of opportunities to make the evangelicals wildly happy," said Pocan, referring to evangelical Christians that oppose the benefits. "We don't need to do it every week."
Representative Mark Pocan is an @ss. And when he doesn't get his gay way he lashes out at Christians. Every time.
Just great. This clown had access to nuclear secrets.
Doesn't he understand that ticking off the turd burglars is the main goal?
That it makes the evangelics happy is merely gravy.
Insert one of those Nelson "Ha-hah!" .wavs here.
as if evangelicals are the only ones who oppose the gay agenda.....
Exactly. This Lutheran isn't happy with it. No one ever singles us out for ridicule. *SNIF* ;)
Good grief!
Boo hoo hoo, the guy is getting paid well - if he can't afford the extra $200 per month, then surely he supports lowering taxes for everyone so that everyone can afford their own health insurance?
Why should the gov't reward him for being a pervert?
1. The millions in research you are generating is not because you are gay. (i would hope). There are also other staff who are required for this research so you need to reduce their costs from your estimated benefit.
2. There are straight professors who are probably drawing this kind of research grant money as well. So his being gay is not a particular benefit to UW in itself.
If the guy is asking for a specific benefit for himself, then he has a good economic argument for it. It wouldn't be any different than offering him a raise or an assistant or a company car. (all politics aside). But that argument doesn't necessarily translate to anybody besides himself so a university-wide policy is still just a political powerplay. Unless he can come up with a list of other gay professors (which at UW you would think should be easy since they recruit them there), he is just being a social activist and not an asset to UW.
Wasn't UW where Shalala came from ?? And has he thought about asking the grant providers for domestic partner benefits directly instead of having to ask the taxpayers of Wisconsin for them?
"Wasn't UW where Shalala came from ?? And has he thought about asking the grant providers for domestic partner benefits directly instead of having to ask the taxpayers of Wisconsin for them?"
Yep. She left the UW to be HHS under Clinton, then Governor Thompson took the job under Bush. Shalala is gay. Tommy is not.
LOL! :)
The principle is solid regardless of the money issue. You could say that every gov't program discrimates against someone. Education is largely for the young. Social security is for the old or disabled. Etc. Every time you define anything, all that is outside that definition is "discriminated against." Sure, money matters, but this is about language and thought as much as anything. It is ridiculous to define this as discrimination.
What constitutes a domestic partner? Is this any warm body that you happen to live with?? Does one have to perform perverted acts to be considered a domestic partner? How bout just being normal best-friends? My point is, how do they prove that they are homos? Can any two people of the same sex that live together claim the benefits?
"My point is, how do they prove that they are homos? Can any two people of the same sex that live together claim the benefits?"
And that is the exact can of worms that is opened every time gay couples are granted the same benefits as heteros. And it's ALWAYS at the taxpayers expense! Grrrrr! Why wouldn't single, straight people hook up to take advantage of it? Lord knows there are enough generations scamming Welfare and they're generally not Rocket Scientists. There seems to be the perception in our government that there is no bottom to MY pockets; how about yours?
There are lots of things that I object my tax money being used for: publicly funded abortions, welfare for those single Moms with three or more kids with different fathers, benefits fo illegals, and I especially hate to think that my tax dollars go to pay the salaries of people such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Tammy Baldwin, Barney Frank, Mark Pocan, et al.
Funding healthcare for pervs is just another thing on my list. *Rolleyes*
Why doesn't he tell him to get off his a$$, get a job and provide for his own medical?
If the benefits are extended to practicing homosexuals, the bigger issue is, why does one have to practice perversion to receive benefits?? Furthermore, how does one prove that they are practicing such acts? This is a ludicrous notion that perversion is to be rewarded while the normal is penalized. Insanity is unbounded. Sheesh!
Taxes--I estimate my total tax chunk at about 50%--this includes State and Federal income, property, personal property, sales, etc. The worst of it is that we all get some of the same benefits--let me clarify; I have never drawn unemployment or welfare, I am referring to use of public utilities, roads, etc.. Is it fair that I have to pay $10 to use what others pay $1 or no$ for said benefits?
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.