|
Same-sex benefits bill gets initial OKWould cover state workersPeter Marcus, DDN Staff WriterMonday, February 16, 2009 | |
A Senate committee on Friday backed a measure that would extend health and dental insurance benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.
Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, the bill’s primary sponsor, says the measure is about attracting and retaining employees, as well as equity for state employees.
But critics say the proposal flies in the face of Colorado voters, who in 2006 passed a ban on gay marriage and rejected spousal benefits for same-sex couples.
“It’s completely out of step with the people of Colorado,” said Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud.
Lundberg lobbied in 2006 for Amendment 43, a citizens initiative that defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the state constitution. Voters essentially eliminated the prospect for gay marriage in the state.
That same year, voters also opposed Referendum I. The measure would have granted gay couples much of the same legal rights and responsibilities that married couples currently enjoy.
Attracting employees
Veiga, however, says at a time when attracting and retaining state employees is so crucial, Senate Bill 88 attracts employees to state jobs.
“It’s the fair thing to do and it’s in the best interest of the state for purposes of recruitment and retention of state workers,” Veiga said on Friday. “It’s why the majority of the private sector has moved in this direction.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday backed the proposal 7-3. It now heads to the full Senate for debate.
Veiga, who is gay, admitted that the issue hits her on a personal level.
“It’s personal in the sense that I am gay,” she said. “So, I’m sensitive to the facts of equity issues for state employees and the problems they face trying to provide insurance for their partners, or even their dependent children.”
She said that about 79 state employees would enjoy the benefits of her proposal.
The Aurora City Council in December was considering a similar proposal that would have added benefits for same-sex partners of city employees. But the issue was put on hold after concerns were raised about the proposal violating Amendment 43.
Other cities, counties offer this
Dozens of other cities and counties across Colorado have extended coverage to domestic partners.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado supports the proposal.
“A responsible employer is one who pays workers based on how well they do their jobs, not their marital status,” wrote ACLU of Colorado Director Cathryn L. Hazouri to Aurora City Council members in December.
Veiga does not buy the argument that her measure goes against the will of voters.
“We’re just extending additional health insurance benefits to about 79 Coloradans,” she said.
| Comments: |
| Brian San Diego @ 2009-02-16 01:19:25 | What is ridiculous is that everytime someone tries to extend any rights at all to same-sex couples, people freak out and think that it will lead to gay marriage or that it violates an amendment or law that forbids same-sex marriage. Bunch of haters. I swear I am going to proclaim myself anti-christian in they same way all these anti-gay idiots are running around claiming th sky is falling cuz gays are finally getting some long overdue rights/ |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
| Steve @ 2009-02-16 13:31:18 | This bill is totally unconstitutional, considering that voters rejected it in 2006. |
| Flag this comment as Inappropriate / Spam |
|
