"JustStoppingBy
Nov 13, 2012 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal

why are you left scratching your head, Steve? does it puzzle you as to why a same sex couple wishes to have the same rights as everyone else?"
He is the issues- if you are not married then you cannot have the same benefit. So far in this state same sex cannot be married so why would they get the same benefit?
Until a "union" starts then you can get "married couple benefits.
Because of you give same sex benefit w/o union then why not man/women who wont get married?

This is a perfect argument FOR gay marriage. I don't think anyone just living together should be able to receive benefits of the "roommate", however, since homosexual marriage isn't allowed, what can be done? Make gay marriage legal.

Whether local, state or federal, the government sure is good at spending other people's money.

Gay marriage is an abomination. Is that clear enough?

Ttt...so you say you didn't call Steve a bigot and then you called him one, huh? Why can't someone have an opinion with out being called a bigot, a racist, etc.? It's not always about you and what you think. Other people have their opinions too.

Any of you reading the international news? All across Europe there are factories and businesses are closing and there are strikes because of the poor economy. Their austerity programs have had to be implemented, govt pensions reduced, taxes increased because they have not dealt with spending issues over the last many years. Sound familiar. We are approaching a financial abyss in this country and all you can do is want more spending to cover ADDED insurance benefits? Deal with it...there will be tax increases for everyone, including the wealthy and more spending cuts, so make sure you want to fall on the sword over this. What part of cutting expenses, not adding them, don't you get? No sidewalks, no ice rink, no added benefits, NO.

Perhaps it's time to do away with all city employees and instead go with contract employees.

No. It will merely unnecessarily waste taxpayer money that we DON'T HAVE.

Drop it. There's nothing stopping "domestic partners" from getting their own J-O-Bs that have B-E-N-E-F-I-T-S! And remember, "it's not about benefits," now is it?

I agree w olderandornerier. This is why we should let all Americans get married to their 'life partner' if they so choose...

Steve, below are two blogs that I follow every day, and they often talk about this topic, and other topics you may find interesting. You should be aware of other points of view for reference (and blog topics). Hmmm... It looks like both of those blogs have gay marriage as their latest entries, too.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...

Janesville can't afford to supply healthcare for all of the boy friends and girl friends of the council members. This is ridiculous, but 'normal' for our disfunctional city leaders. Let's just supply healthcare for the member's family - plain and simple.

Domestic partner benefits is the same as girlfriend/boyfriend benefits, they should not exist. Spousal benefits are just that, for spouses, not anyone else. Married is a legal term, domestic partner is just shacking up.

"Meanwhile, the vote to add to the overhead of the taxpayers with this benefit without much public debate has me scratching my head."

In a state that denies marriage to certain people and allows cities to use those laws to deny equal benefits to those people who can not legally marry, you have people like yourself then questioning the "overhead" of equal benefits. If you're so concerned about the "overhead" of benefits, why not cut all benefits -- including those for married partners? It seems quite clear to me that your concern isn't with the "overhead" of equal benefits. It's with giving those people who are denied the right of marriage the same benefits as those who have that right...adding insult to injury.

Just as an example: In my private sector company, IF an employee's spouse/partner has coverage available from their own employer but chooses not to have that coverage maybe due to which doctors are covered or whatever (or chooses my company's employees coverage as secondary/backup), my company makes employees pay a surcharge for covering a spouse/partner who could have coverage elsewhere. I realize this is not exactly what the topic is about, but the comments have talked about increasing employee costs for coverage for other family members, and I wanted to make it clear it is starting to happen in the private sector, so it shouldn't be a surprise that it is contemplated for public sector employees.

Knox, looks like this blog and its comments have given you an important topic for your next neighborhood prayer meetin'.

And be sure to blog on this site what transpired i.e. what the consensus was and who were the beneficiaries of the group prayer?

Steve, using your logic in reverse - would not covering say, Lutherans, give you enough for that fire station? I hope you've had time to rethink your perspective. If not, I suspect you're scratching grey matter by now.

Ya. And whats your next blog going to be?.. "Should colored people really ride in the back of the bus?".. Get with the times.

Steve. I wouldn't judge anyone who sits on either side of this issue. However, your logic as to why to agree with it in one situation and not in the other is weak at best. You may want to re-think what you wrote in your blog. If you dont't see your flawed logic there isn't any reason for you to comment on it anymore. By, the way I would'nt bring it up among friends either. You look kind of foolish.

why are you left scratching your head, Steve? does it puzzle you as to why a same sex couple wishes to have the same rights as everyone else?

just get over it. if they hire a person and offer health benifits to them and spouse you are ok with that, but just dont offer that to a domestic partner. shame on you. its the same thing.. people are people.. partners are partners...we are born the way we end up we have no choice on that. get over it....

Mr. Knox continues to argue that this issue is all about money. Sorry Steve, but not everything in life is about the almighty dollar -- and don't give me the "it's a budget, duh" argument. This comes down to decency and human compassion and ends there.

Looking at last week's election results it's clear that a majority of Janesville and Rock County residents (not to mention at a state and national level) believe that this country should be more inclusive rather than exclusive, that a person's character and basic rights are not and should not be defined by who they love.

Talk about the "nickel-and-diming" of the budget all you want, but you just provided the ultimate example of doing so. Maybe we wouldn't have to argue over those items if people in this city, this county and this country in general weren't so quick to complain about their property taxes being too "high." You get what you pay for, folks.

Steve- why would you email the posters vs discussing on here on YOUR blog?

You can read my comments on the article from last night.

'A 2005 Hewitt Associates study found that the majority of employers — 64 percent — experience a total financial impact of less than 1 percent of total benefits cost, 88 percent experience financial impacts of 2 percent or less and only 5 percent experience financial impacts of 3 percent or greater of total benefits cost'

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/domes...

Whatever Steve. Please stop emailing me. If you have an opinion to share with me, share it where you started the convo. Also, I didn't call you a bigot. I said I'm always happy to discuss bigotry. If the vote is there to allow same sex health benefits and you vote 'no', or it makes your stomach turn because you are more concerned with money than other human beings you are either cold or a bigot, from my perspective...

Tim,

That's on the table for many companies right now as well. Budget cuts, lack of revenue but adding unknown expense to the budget. It may be small, then again it may be larger than anyone predicted. It's an increase either way.

Meanwhile, it feels like the budget is being nickeled and dimed looking for money.

Steve, you can reply to me here and skip the emails. If you think this is about the money, then how about we discontinue benefits to the spouses who already receive them?? That would surely save some money, yes??

Sorry Steve, you dropped the ball on this one.

I'm with brewcrew420. Money?? This ain't about the money. Focus grasshopper.

Steve, you are entitled to any opinion you like. But turning this into an issue about your pocketbook is completely asinine. You never hesitate to post a blog patting yourself on the back for being a good person/Christian/neighbor/father/son/friend, but you'll take each and every opportunity to prove otherwise with drivel like this. Even Sigma40 has a rational opinion on this one. No wonder people think the way they do of Janesville and its populous; your antiquated way of thinking is the problem.

The ONLY reason why anybody would be against this is for antiquated religious reasons.

I think that making everyone independent should be a core ingredient in health care reform. that takes away all the social factors, and makes insurance more honest. If I'm willing to pay for someones insurance, why do I have to marry them.

A lot of places are doing this.... I think they are just getting with the times....surprising for Janesville, you'd think they'd wait another 50 years. Its kind of like accepting black people, or womens rights back in the day, if you (employer) dont get on the train now you will have issues start coming up. Janesville is all about "look at me" so of course they need to stay on par in the HR department. Were I work they posted this a couple months ago.