Opponents of city benefits for unmarried partners file petition...

[Jim]

How about I don't feel like my taxes should go up to pay for extending benefits to people who are not married. If you want the benefits of being married...get married....if you can't get married, go about it the legal way and have the laws changed. We are a country that is supposed to be a democracy, and governed by the will of the people. If there are enough people who support this, then have the laws changed. If not, then the rest of us should not have our taxes raised to pay for benefits afforded to same sex couples. Majority rules!! Sorry.

[El Paso People]

I am calling my representative tomorrow to let him know that I support this petition.

And Viva Chicos Tacos!!!

[El Paso People]

Proud El Pasoan wrote:

At least now there is a public list of at least 4,932 bigots in our fair city.

Make that 4,935!!! Counting my wife and I.

[El Mexica]

Can I include my gamecocks? I report them in my income tax.

[Veteran]

CF Emerson wrote:

If these people are "GIVEN" these benifits, which they should not get where will it end? They will then want the benefits extended to children, parents, nieces, nephews, etc... because they live in their house. Stop trying to leach off of the system, live a moral and correct lifestyle and work for what you want in life. If you choose an alternative lifestyle do not expect to receive traditional treatment!!!

Actually MR. EMERSON, I work hard for what I have EARNED. I pay local, state and federal taxes and have served in our military and the law enforcement community. I am a homeowner and regestered voter. I cannot belive that you think that you live a TRADITIONAL lifestyle that you should DESERVE more than myself or thousands of others like myself, that live NORMAL lives. What we do in our bedrooms is none of your business. Also, the last I checked, the Constitution states that there shall be a spearation of church and state, so keep your BELIEFS out of my government!

[Jim]

Yet someone else taking the moral high road while responding on here from a Government computer. Guess our tax dollars that you "work hard for" are going for you to air your opinion here. I am also a veteran, a former and present member of law enforcement, and strongly believe in our code of laws. Last I checked same sex couples cannot get married "by law" so if they want the benefits of getting married, then get married. If you can't be married under the law....like I said two times before, then get the law changed! Until then, I do not want my tax dollars going to pay for same sex couples benefits; or to someone at work on the tax payers dime on a computer paid for by the tax payers trying to tell me that they are on the moral high road.

Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually MR. EMERSON, I work hard for what I have EARNED. I pay local, state and federal taxes and have served in our military and the law enforcement community. I am a homeowner and regestered voter. I cannot belive that you think that you live a TRADITIONAL lifestyle that you should DESERVE more than myself or thousands of others like myself, that live NORMAL lives. What we do in our bedrooms is none of your business. Also, the last I checked, the Constitution states that there shall be a spearation of church and state, so keep your BELIEFS out of my government!

[Proud El Pasoan]

Jim wrote:

We are a country that is supposed to be a democracy, and governed by the will of the people. If there are enough people who support this, then have the laws changed. If not, then the rest of us should not have our taxes raised to pay for benefits afforded to same sex couples. Majority rules!! Sorry.

The Constitution exists to prevent the "Tyranny of the majority" and places beyond certain values beyond the whim of a transient majority. The 14th amendment requires government to extend equal protection and equal treat under law to all persons within its jurisdiction. The El Paso City Council observed this provision of the Supreme Law of the land in extending health insurance benefits to all City employees.

The Constitution rules.

[skz]

fhciriza wrote:

<quoted text>
You'll first have to learn to write the language correctly!

Once I do...how can I get all my women covered? Hey the live with me.
I wish I could marry them all, but I can't. At least insurance is available to significant others.

[Rey]

Another angle, this issue was not about the council being concerned about equal protection or rights. It was about being PC and most important of all, for them, FUTURE VOTES.

They stated they were concerned with EP's image to the rest of the world. Strange, there is no comment or outrage about Byrd trashing the FT Bliss people or showcased EP's seedy areas in a worldwide publication.

[gabe]

rey, i really dont have a problem with them offering the significant others an option to get the healthcare, i just dont want the taxpayer to pay for it. make the significant others and dependents portion be paid by the employee and not the taxpayer. if wilson really wanted to cut the budget, she could cut what the city pays for the spouse and kids. this way it doesnt matter who or what you add to the pool and we dont pay for it. most private businesses only pay the employees portion and not the dependents.

[gabe]

rey, i also agree that byrd and escobar should have been giving more sheet about their remarks on playboy. even so-called conservative davidk didnt even give them crap because "they talked to him."
what it comes down too is that david hates medina so to him escobar is "better" for judge. as for me, i would rather see neither as judge. he gives byrd(the political correct natzi) a slide because of family business that has to do with council. how anyone can give the nancy pelosi of el paso a slide on a p.c. boo-boo is beyond comprehension.

even jaime lionstar gives them a slide. of course, if your a liberal democrat being p.c. is not a qualification, but if your a republican or consevative, it is a qualification.

[Rey]

Actually, Jaime of Lion Star voiced his strong disapproval of the comments on his blog.

[Rey]

One more point, off topic, the VFW, American Legion, military active and retired and the citizens of EP have been very quiet, although both were insulted. Not to mention those that want EP to evolve thru business and visitors.

[Jim]

They already have equal treatment under the law. When they are tried in a court of law, there is no qualification regarding their sexual preference or whether they are married or single. What we are talking about here is a civil matter. Which according to the laws (in most places in this country) marriage is between a man and a woman. Also most places provide benefits to married people which would include spouse/children, or to single people with option of adding their children. There is no legality to boyfriend/girlfriend or "significant other". Like others have said here, I'm not against anyone receiving benefits, but I do not want to have to contribute one cent to these benefits. If this is the case, I should petition the county/city to pay for medical insurance for my pet. I'm not married to my dog, but my dog lives with me and I love my dog dearly...therefore the taxpayers should be forced to pay for insurance for my poor Chihuahua! No?? I didn't think that would be a popular proposal, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect the community to pay for it.

Proud El Pasoan wrote:

<quoted text>
The Constitution exists to prevent the "Tyranny of the majority" and places beyond certain values beyond the whim of a transient majority. The 14th amendment requires government to extend equal protection and equal treat under law to all persons within its jurisdiction. The El Paso City Council observed this provision of the Supreme Law of the land in extending health insurance benefits to all City employees.
The Constitution rules.

[Boot]

Someone identify what the differences are from a woman and a man and a man and a man or a woman and a woman?

Yes, there are obvious differences. They are still pairs. Still people. Still Americans.

Look for your morals and give these people the rights that they deserve.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[Jim]

While were at it, my 11 year old should be entitled to a welfare check as well, after all equal treatment right? He doesn't make any money...so we should give him some...or maybe lets send him a social security check every month. What? He doesn't qualify because it would be against the rules?? Did I hear someone say against the rules? Hmmm I wonder what else that's been discussed recently is against "the rules"? I can go on all day....but I'll revert back to my initial comments, don't like "the rules" then talk to your representatives and get them changed!!

[A Boot]

Does it really bother you that much. I don't really have an issue with it. They work too.

[Jim]

Yes it does bother me that much. If they want the benefits, then get married. Simple solution. I'm tired of my taxes going up year after year to appease a special interest group.

[Taxpayer]

I don't think "significant Others" regardless of what kind of union should qualify when our mentally ill go without medicine to the extent they pose a danger to us or themselves. Put the money where it is needed not to a want.

[to taxpayer]

as long as our taxes dont pay for the significant others of the city employee i could care less if or what they add to the policy as long as the employee pays the full amount.