Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Just say NO!

The "Protect Marriage Arizona" Amendment is an anti-domestic partner benefits initiative. It is set to take away benefits and legal protections for ALL unmarried couples whether homosexual or HETEROSEXUAL, period.


Taken from the No on Prop 107 website:

"This amendment will have a negative effect on unmarried heterosexual, committed couples! Of the 118,196 Arizona households with unmarried partners identified in the 2000 Census, more than 106,000 of them were straight couples living together. That's about 10% of all couples in the state!

"Many Arizonans who would like to marry cannot for various reasons: financial consequences of divorce, attempts to maintain survivor benefits, and may more. That means that if this amendment passes:If you are in a domestic partnership, you will lose medical and other benefits if you work for Pima County or the cities of Tucson, Phoenix, Scottsdale or Tempe. You may also lose the benefits being offered by your company if it offers domestic partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual, committed couples.

"Domestic Violence laws will no longer apply. In Ohio, where a similar amendment passed, a man who beat his girlfriend had a reduced sentence because the judge ruled that the domestic violence laws no longer applied to unmarried couples. In Utah, a protective order was challenged by a defense lawyer for a man who continued to show up at a former girlfriend's home. In the Tucson area, senior citizens not wanting to marry for fear of losing pension and/or social security benefits from their deceased or divorced spouse, will no longer have their partner recognized and therefore will lose the benefits afforded to them by the Tucson Domestic Partner Registry, including the very important right to visit their partner in a health care facility.

"Many seniors cannot marry for fear of losing their pension and Social Security benefits. The legal impact of the amendment is not fully known, but it is certain that Arizona's seniors are especially in need of the ability to make life-saving medical decisions for their loved ones. In the Tucson area, senior citizens registered on the Domestic Partner Registry will no longer be legally recognized. In addition they will lose: the right to visit their partner in a health care facility, and spousal discounts on Parks and Recreation fees.

"This amendment will hurt children and put them at risk. Less than 25% of American families are made up of "one man + one woman" households. Will single parents or heterosexual, committed couples find themselves suddenly declared unconstitutional? Should their children
be without access to health care or other benefits? In Arizona, children are only eligible for health benefits under their biological or foster/adopted parent. If this parent is without insurance, the non-biological parent will not be able to provide insurance for the child.

"Because Arizona laws do not allow second-parent adoption, if the biological or foster/adopted parent passes away, the state or other biological relative may remove the child from the parent's partner-- gay or straight. The parent without legal rights to the child may not be recognized as the child's parent by medical facilities, schools, etc. and therefore has no right to participate in the child's activities in these locations. Medicaid states on their website that as of July 2005, an estimated 15.3% or 245,309 children are without insurance. These numbers include both gay and straight households. No percentage of these children should be without access to health insurance.

"Arizona would be at a distinct disadvantage, by comparison, in attempting to attract top talent and new business to the state. Establishment of new Arizona locations for businesses that have locations in other states, and employee transfers between those locations would be complicated by benefit differences.

"The perception of an environment of intolerance for diversity, as well as explicit benefit differences, would most likely contribute to the continuation, or even the acceleration, of the loss of Arizona's top college graduates to other states.

Not to attract people to such a sick and twisted and HATEFUL group of people, let's just look at the other side of this matter...who is supporting this bigotry?
Support for 107


How do you honestly plan to save marriage with shows like, Marry a Millionaire, Bachelor / Bachelorette, and NUMEROUS other bs programming showing the trivial side to today's marriage? Britney's quickie, the average 3 year marriage. Furthermore, in 2005, 51% of households were unmarried couples compared to 49% being married couples. In the 1930's, 84% were MARRIED households. There is a decline here and marriage simply isn't what it used to be. Times have changed! Marriage still has a place in society and many people still believe in it. But it doesn't hold the same values it once did and whether you admit it or not, homosexuality and/or domestic partner benefits has no bearing. As my partner said today, it they outlawed divorce, how many people do you think would marry?

I, never while growing up, wanted to marry. I'd witnessed much divorce through relatives and later by my own parents. Between my father and step-mother, there are 8, yes EIGHT marriages. The vows just don't mean anything. And frankly, maybe they're not suppose to. The history of marriage is incredibly archaic and as we progress with technology etc., perhaps it's time we progress with ourselves as well?

Outlaw divorce and 50 minute marriages...that's how you can "protect" your "sanctity" of marriage. This isn't going to happen and it's a ridiculous concept. But that would be truly protecting the value of marriage - taking it back to Death do you Part, right?
Quit wasting everyone's time trying to hide your bigotry. It's really getting tiresome.

The real deal about 107 :

It would ban domestic partner benefits (primarily medical insurance) for all state, county and city employees. This includes colleges, universities and school districts.
No state, county or city entity would be able to reinstate them or pass laws that would establish these benefits in the future. This would most probably affect the ability of private business to determine benefits for their own employees. In addition, lawsuits to force governmental entities to end contracts with private companies that offer domestic partner benefits are likely. If private businesses choose not to follow the amendment's restrictions, they could have their government contracts voided.

Businesses would be forced to choose between receiving government contracts and offering domestic partner benefits. The broad language of the amendment could also be interpreted legally to deny employees the right to name beneficiaries of their choice (life insurance, etc) or limit other benefits, possibly contributing to a more unstable workforce and reduced productivity.

If passed, the amendment will eliminate benefits of those currently registered as domestic partners, and jeopardize the possibility of Arizona ever providing the basic legal protections to same-sex couples. People who have registered their domestic partnerships--gay or straight--in Tucson will see their certificates become worthless pieces of paper.

Couples who work for the cities of Tucson, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe and Pima County, and other institutions/agencies currently providing domestic partner health benefits, will see their benefits taken away. Even the recently announced tuition waiver benefits offered to same-sex domestic partners employed at the University of Arizona will disappear. And to top it off, domestic partner benefits offered by more than 65% of Arizona's top private employers would be at risk.

Local control would be taken away! Passage of this amendment will set back all the hard won rights (and their adjunct responsibilities) gained by the LGBTQ community in the last 30 years.
It just doesn't make sense. Arizona being a very Republican state, is running this drive under fear that the State's Supreme Court will soon rule in favor of granting homosexual couples the right to marry as Mass. did. This is highly unlikely, at least in any recent year's terms. The bottom line is yet another division of this country is being driven only now it is pulling the government into a morality war. You have a faith based morality against living in sin pushing the government to amend the state's constitution to eliminate bennies to those who they deem, live immorally. They judge, a lot.

How very "christian" of them...

1 comment:

DrM2B said...

Hi stranger =)

Bee busier than a one armed paper hanger.....but the house is coming back together.....feels good to breathe...there was just tooo much stuff for this house to hold....

anywho....I saw this article on msn....thought of you......give a call sometime....Im drowning in the PhD stuff & repairing the house (painting floors, cleaning...organizing)....but in a couple weekends or so I should be able to roadtrip a day.....

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/LoveAndMoney/FinancialPlanningForGayCouples.aspx?GT1=8690