Get your Tickets to “8”

Click for larger image

Call the Bozeman Public Library for free tickets: 406.582.2426

AZ Governor Jan Brewer To Supreme Court: Overturn Same-Sex Benefits

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is asking the Supreme Court to overturn same-sex partner benefits for Arizona state employees. The Arizona Daily Sun reports:

Legal papers filed by Attorney General Tom Horne contend that a three-judge panel of the appellate court got it wrong when it concluded earlier this month that it is illegal for the state to provide health care and other benefits to the partners of married workers while refusing to do the same for same-sex couples.

He said the state is allowed to make such distinctions.

In the opinion of several lawmakers in Arizona (who disagree with the move), this appeal is purely “to make a point” against immorality- oh, and to save the state some money. The Daily Sun again:

Hanging in the balance is whether gay workers will lose benefits they have had since 2008. That is when then-Gov. Janet Napolitano got her Department of Administration to rewrite the state’s personnel rules to expand the definition of who is a “dependent” for purposes of state employment.

Under those rules, that included someone living with the employee for at least a year and expected to continue living with that person. The rules, which did not specify the gender of the partner, also required a showing of financial interdependence and an affidavit by the worker affirming there is a domestic partnership.

But in 2009, after Napolitano resigned to take a post in the Obama administration, the Republican-controlled Legislature approved — and Brewer signed — a state law narrowing the definition and specifically excluding unmarried couples.

… According to the Department of Administration, there are 226 employees of the state, the University of Arizona and Arizona State University who are receiving same-sex domestic partner benefits. He said the annual cost is slightly more than $5 million a year.

Does this sound familiar? Prop 8, anyone? The question is whether the balance of social opinion and acceptance will have an affect on this decision. Fascinating also that this request comes just as the general elections ramping up…

Full story here

Brewer Asks High Court To Reverse Benefits For Same-Sex Partners (huffingtonpost.com)
Arizona Appeals Same-Sex Partner Benefits Ruling (lezgetreal.com)

A Thought On Prop 8 and Gender

Jul22 by D Gregory Smith

My partner finds all sorts of things that he brings to my attention every day- just one of the many reasons I love him. This came up yesterday….

From Metafilter (edited for ease of reading):

“Proposition 8 Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry:

Initiative Constitutional Amendment SECTION I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The biggest problem is that laws like the California initiative will make the courts decide who is male and who is female — and all available decision criteria create unavoidable miscarriages of justice that will, or should, dismay initiative proponents.

You’re probably thinking, about now, that I’m going to exaggerate the sex-definitional 1 problem: Probably, you and everyone you know is unambiguously male or female — or at least has always believed himself or herself to be so, and nobody’s challenged that, and nobody’s likely to.

That’s true, absolutely: Only maybe one live birth in 100 has some non-standard sex anatomy, and genetic anomalies are slightly rarer than that.

However, let’s talk about those 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 cases — because those could be you, or your aunt, or your best friend — and because our system of law has to deal with 1-in-1000 situations, too.