“Unlike other bills, this one would have extended special benefits to just about any two people–including platonic relationships–stripping marriage of all meaning or incentive. Once again, Rep. [Mark] Baker pointed out the ridiculously high costs to taxpayers, especially as it pertains to homosexuals. Though we’ve not researched his source, Baker insisted that only 1% of homosexuals die of old age, a reference to the expensive health conditions associated with same-sex behavior. He insisted that would only burden the state’s budget more. The majority of lawmakers agreed, stopping the bill by a 34-25 vote on the statehouse floor. Both victories were a shot in the arm for the marriage movement, which could use a few more fearless leaders like Wyoming’s!” – Hate group leader and White Supremicist Tony Perkins, crowing about Wyoming’s rejection of a domestic partnership bill. Not “marriage”, but “domestic partnership”
This is 100 percent proof that Tony PerKKKins and others like him care nothing about marriage, or the redefinition of it from “one men, one woman” as they like to say. Wyoming’s Bill had nothing to do with marriage but was about domestic partnerships and Perkins main argumets were “marriage benefits” for incentive? Like small business tax credits for opening a Pizzeria? The argument is a burning straw man because any two opposite sex “pltonic friends can get married now as the law stands. It makes a joke of him and his religious marriage crusaders argument and exposes it for what it really is. Nothing but hateful bigotry.
And as for ” we’re not researched on the source, (ie. LIE) only 1% of homosexuals die of old age” bullshit. Officially, no one dies of old age in the United States. That’s according to the NCHS, which is the government agency responsible for collecting statistical information on how we die.
In 2011 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary injunction from a lower court that blocked a 2009 state law eliminating health-insurance coverage for same-sex partners of state employees from taking effect signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that overturned a 2008 executive order from her predecessor, Gov. Janet Napolitano, who used administrative powers to grant the coverage.
After the 2011 decision, Brewer and her lawyers asked the Ninth Circuit to re-hear the case en banc, or by an 11-judge panel. On April 3, the Ninth Circuit denied the request.
The Ninth Circuit ruling, which upheld a trial-court ruling, kept an Arizona law from going into effect that, as the appeals court held, “would have terminated eligibility for health-care benefits of state employees’ same-sex partners
In a July 2 filing noted on the Supreme Court docket, lawyers for the governor have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the September 2011 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had the effect of keeping same-sex partners’ health-care benefits in place in the state.
The case, Brewer v. Diaz, is No. 12-23 is now on the Supreme Court docket.
Lambda Legal which is representing the plaintiff couples, who have until August 6 to submit their response to the governor’s petition.
On June 29th, 2009, Former Democratic Wisconsin Governor Doyle signed domestic partnerships into law in Wisconsin making Wisconsin the first state in the Midwest to legislatively enact extensive protections for same-sex couples including: The transfers of real estate between domestic partners, inherit from the estate of domestic partner who dies without a will, and employees who are covered by the state Family Medical Leave Act may take up to 2 weeks off per year to care for a domestic partner even though Wisconsin has a constitutional amendment banning both marriage equality and civil unions. (For a full summary of the domestic partnership protections, see the Legislative Fiscal Bureau paper🙂
Since the enactment of Domestic partnership legislature it has been challenged by anti-gay groups such as Wisconsin Family Action claiming that the registry be declared unconstitutional to no avil. But now GOP Governor and Koch Brothers butt boy Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has told a judge he wants to stop defending that state’s domestic partner registry in court because he doesn’t believe it’s constitutional.
“Darth Walker” has filed a motion asking to withdraw the defense entirely.
“If the governor determines that defending a law would be contrary to the state’s constitution, he cannot order the defense of the law because of his oath to support the Wisconsin Constitution,“ Walker’s attorney, Brian Hagedorn, wrote in the motion. “To allow the previous administration’s analysis to bind a subsequent administration would be contrary to what justice requires.“
Lambda Legal has joined Fair Wisconsin and several same-sex couples in the fight to ensure the domestic partner registry remains in Wisconsin as of this time over 1,500 same-sex couples have registered for the partnership
President Obama has been called everything from a Communist to Satan for deciding not to defend DOMA by the Republican party. Will they say the same of Walker for not defending Domestic Partnerships?
Don’t count on it.
Starting today, Thursday, Google is going to begin covering a cost the extra cost that gay and lesbian employees must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits, largely to compensate them for an extra tax that heterosexual married couples do not pay tkanks to the unjust Federal Law “The Defense Of Marriage Act,
Under DOMA, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent. The tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer.
On average, employees with domestic partners will pay about $1,069 more a year in taxes than a married employee with the same coverage, according to a 2007 report by M. V. Lee Badgett, director of the Williams Institute, a research group that studies sexual orientation policy issues.
The extra compensation to cover the domestic partner tax will apply only to same-sex domestic partners, Mr. Bock said, because heterosexual couples can avoid the added tax by marrying. (Same-sex couples can make their unions official in several states, but their relationship will not be federally recognized.)
The additional pay will also cover the dependents of the employee’s domestic partner. The changes will be retroactive to Jan. 1, and will apply only to workers in the United States.
Congress has tried to address the fact that same-sex couples pay more for domestic partner health coverage. The health care overhaul legislation passed by the House last November included language that would have eliminated the tax on employer-provided coverage. But the provision did not make it into the final legislation signed by President Obama in March. And Obama did not fight for it to be included.
Nice work, Google!
Maybe we should vote for “GOOGLE For President”?