One of the many bad habits I've picked up from Mark is looking at the Colorado Springs Gazette
A letter today argues that domestic partnership benefits for city employees would be a "double-standard" that treats gays better than straights since the self-proclaimed heterosexual writer wouldn't receive benefits if he was living with a man in a "committed" relationship. All fine and good I suppose, I'm certainly in favor of equal treatment, but it is sort of odd that the city has considered giving benefits to gay couples but not straight couples. But, wait, the city does give married couples benefits and the state--strangely enough--doesn't recognize gay marriage. I guess that just doesn't add up to a "double-standard" does it?
Here's the letter
City benefits for gay partners would create special class
The Gazettes Feb. 16 report, Gay-benefits backers suspect double standard, stated that Trish Bangert, the attorney suing the city over benefits revocation for gay couples was complaining of being victim to double standards set by the city, comparing her case to the situation with the firefighters pension.
If I understand correctly, she is arguing that gay city employees should be entitled to medical benefits for their partners like married couples are. Gay marriages are not legal in Colorado. I have nothing against gay couples, and if thats the lifestyle they choose, thats their prerogative. However, as a heterosexual city employee, if I were living with a man I was not married to, I would not be entitled to medical benefits for my partner, either, no matter how committed we may be. Why does she think they are entitled to anything more than the rest of us? Where are the double standards now?
-Ziggy Stardust 19:26 EST |