photogal,

No one is being discriminated against. "domestic partnership is still a slap in the face, as well as Civil Unions. Either way, calling it anything else but marriage makes the LGBT community feel like second class citizens." I dont believe your are a spokesperson for the LBGT community-and there are plenty of gay couples that I know disagree with your opinion.

Call it what you want-but its one thing to insist on equal rights for individuals-of which I agree, another thing to demand the equal treatment of all relationships-which is what you demand. The demand to recognize same sex unions as virtually identical to male-female marriage isn’t just a matter of extending an ancient, honorable institution to new customers. It is an effort to redefine and restructure that institution at its very core.

If replacing a bride with a second groom on the wedding cake makes no difference in the nature of the marriage, then a female partner is interchangeable with a male partner. And if the core differences between men and women count for so little, then it’s hard for homosexuals to claim that they can only feel attraction to their own gender. If men and women are, essentially, the same, then why can’t gay people choose opposite sex partners and spare us all the trouble of redefining the nature of marriage and upending the social order?

First off, this should not be about money. This is clearly an equality issue. Gandalf, people who are in domestic partnerships would LOVE to marry, we are not allowed. If the state legalized marriage instead of discriminating against a group of people, then you wouldn't have to worry about the financial implications.
While on the topic, domestic partnership is still a slap in the face, as well as Civil Unions. Either way, calling it anything else but marriage makes the LGBT community feel like second class citizens. Even if these two are trying to take a step in the right direction, its still a step in the direction of discrimination. Someone fought for womens rights, someone fought for Blacks rights...here we are today, fighting another another battle and its always based on discrimination. Equality isn't for those who fit in with what they consider socially acceptable, equality is for all. Get with the times.

I agree 100% with RockEnvironmentalNetwork.

Agree or not agree - this issue should be brought up at budget time.

witaxman said, "...why in the world would we want do fund something that the majority of people believe is morally wrong..."

In case you didn't get the memo, you are welcome to join the 21st century and leave your angry old religious rhetoric in the past where it belongs.

in an era when the city is facing deficit problems why in the world would we want do fund something that the majority of people believe is morally wrong, especially without knowing what the cost would be before a committment is made? that would be sheer lunacy. Of course, these two "gentlemen," used very loosely, don't care because it's your money, not theirs, that they would be spending. Perhaps it's because they want benefits for themselves before they come out.

This is a reasonable suggestion-employers that offer health insurance often offer domestic partner coverage-not a big deal. However, never forget that Sam and Yuri will always find it much easier to spend your money than their own. Neither of these guys has any sensitivity to what services cost or why they should be offered-they dont need to-its other peoples money.

belman and to all the others who think this is good. You pay for it. Okay, you pay for this immoral legislation. I am personally tired of Libert and Rashkin speaking for us. They have worn out their welcome. Both on the low end of the food chain. Both not responsible, both not respected in the community. Go ahead flag this comment, it wont change that neither of you represent anyone but a select few mindless citizens.

Sam and Yuri seem to think that this kind of public employee benefit enhancement will be well received by Janesville's residents in spite of the economic conditions that exist here. Sadly, they may be right, too. Maybe they think that to pay for it, if that question has actually crossed their minds yet, they can double the new wheel tax that hasn't started to be collected, or complained about, yet since their new idea wouldn't boost property taxes if financed that way.

notajanesvillelifer. Sam Liebert rents, so he too is spending my money not his.

Both of these people are fine men and have a wonderful ideal. This is a good thought for Janesville to attact good employees.

gfan "like"

I heard Yuki play at Cafe Belwau I can see why he is looking for something that pays!

Billyjvl: you asked what property taxes Mr. Rashkin pays. The answer is he does not pay any. His last home was foreclosed on. I would also like to know how much income tax he pays or if he reports all of the cash musical gigs that he plays at. Mr. Rashkin-the people of Janesville do not want to pay any more taxes for foolish, nonessential items. Keep showing your true colors before the election.

Did Barnie Frank have anything to do with this?

They are trying to run a business.... not a city. I should have a choice in paying taxes. If I dont want to invest in their business ventures, I should be credited on my taxes paid, or not pay as much.

Wow, one of Scotty Angus' crack reporters actually covered this. He didn't have to rely on the A.P.???? Getting back to the article, it seems that more and more clowns like these two are trying to turn Janesville into "Madison South". I'm surprised there aren't thousands of dollars in "consulting fees" involved, like with the ice arena etc.

The glare from the photos hurts my eyes.

Did the these two “representatives of the entire city” do any research of how this policy can be scammed? The loopholes and potential for fraudulent claims has to be weighed and I seriously doubt that“ Laurel and Hardy” even consider or worry about the pitfalls of a policy like this. Did they actually do their homework on the negative aspect of this policy and other how other communities have first hand experience or were they just aiming to please a certain group of voters?

This meeting looks like a whole bunch of fail and waste. What is $70k when we are wanting to give million dollar handouts? Its sad when our tax money is being used like this...all of the items that are going to be addressed. I probably wont be at the Janesville City Council Incorporated's meeting.

I think it opens up a whole can of worms.......will a domestic partner be able to sue the city if their other partner gets hurt...injured ..etc...?

Gandalf....well said....

It's wrong for the city to make a commitment like this when the individuals don't make a commitment of marriage. Just legalize marriage for same sex couples, and insure married employees, their spouse, and their families. Domestic partnerships are a joke, and such couples should not expect their employer to make a commitment while they themselves do not.

This is no more than asking tax payers to pay for city employee's live in boy/girl friend. Common law marriage should be taken into consideration when a break up occurs to divide property....when a death occurs to divide property...when one is in intensive care and who is considered "family" to visit.

If marriage is only a piece of paper then get the paper and be legal to receive benefits of people who are committed. What the paper costs will pay off in the long run compared to health care insurance.

The timing of this really seems ironic. It is occurring right after one of these two announced his intentions to run for assembly.

The additional cost will come from property tax. What are the property tax amounts these two are paying?

This is inappropriate. Offering health insurance to domestic partners is NOT THE right thing to do, it is wrong and legislating morality. I don't care if you agree or disagree, Rashkin and Liebert are bad and asking you the taxpayer to pay for someones immorality. This is as evil an action as requiring nuns to pay for abortions. Just because Liebert thinks domestic partnership is becoming more accepted does not rationalize paying for benefits. It is also quite acceptable to a certain minority to get drunk and drive on new years eve? How about legalizing that too.

If the minority is contributing to the masses, why not let them receive the same benefits that the masses do? California is passing legislation that would allow domestic couples to marry. Why not let Janesville start on the same path. And leave the Bible out of it.

I'm with Rawhide (look down below). I've worked for private sector companies that have done this for decades. Why? Because its the right thing to do if you actually care about your employees and their families. Doesn't matter if it's one, a dozen, or none affected - make the change.

Simply a platform item for them both, as they aspire for higher office. Grandstanding 101.

lussonee said, "It's called socialism! Take from the majority to support the minority."

Hate to destroy the childhood myth you have about socialism, but that is far from the definition or truth of socialism. Once you recover from the shock of another childhood myth having been destroyed, you may want to spend a little time researching socialism.

Did anyone notice that most of the items on the agenda are projects that require taxpayer support from which most taxpayers will not benefit? It's called socialism! Take from the majority to support the minority.

How many employees domestic partners does this potentially affect? I think it needs to be viewed that way rather than just cost. Obviously if it affects 20 people it makes sense to continue the coverage whereas if it only affects 1 it doesn't make sense.

"The city is not aware of any difficulties in recruiting because of the lack of domestic partner benefits," she said.
-
A lack of difficulty in recruiting is a terrible metric to use in gauging the success and basic fairness of your employment policies. We should want to do the right thing as a city, just because it's, well, the right thing to do. And the only right thing to do is to provide benefits to all city employees and their partners.

This Liebert clown has got to go. Nothing more than a deadbeat with a tie. He's not qualified to run a neighborhood block party. (Unless he can get a "richer" neighborhood to pay for the food and beverages.) What a freakin' sponge!

Sam and Yuri make a cute couple. Good for them.

It's not up to the state to tell people how to live their lives, and it's certainly not the place of religious organizations to tell the state anything.
Shelley Segal - Saved
http://youtu.be/z-h_jNiSczw

Did you include all of the items on the agenda?
I'm just wonderin' about the dissolution of a couple of advisory committees...

It's a shame that only one of these entitled for life grandstanders will be off of the council after April election. The two of them could commiserate while toasting each other's chances in the assembly election: Slim and None.

I used to work for a fortune 100 company that enacted this same policy... 11 years ago. It's time Janesville to do what's right and extend coverage to the significant others of city employees.

I'm sure the "Bobsy Twins" will elighten the masses.