May 4
...serving up your daily dish.
Last February, Essex county said ok to granting benefits for domestic partners of county employees, and now Bloomfield is following their lead. Last Monday night, the Bloomfield Town Council voted to extend benefit coverage to same sex partners of employees, including retirees. Thanks to Anne Prince who tipped us off to this story. This got a mention in My Bloomfield online.
May 4, 2006 in Civic Virtue | Permalink
Wow, I am impressed. I never would have expected such an enlightened, generous attitude from the powers that be in Bloomfield. I guess wonders never cease.
Posted by: Karen | May 4, 2006 10:41:59 AM
Bravo Bloomfield Town Council! Now let's revamp downtown into something worth visiting, that is, competitively priced stores, not all national chains and give our high school back to resident students (see Newsweek's Best High Schools thread)and we will "out-Montclair" Montclair. Also, please, a moratorium on .99 cent stores!
Posted by: glee | May 4, 2006 11:11:40 AM
I support *this* kind of action as it is enacted by elected representatives of the people.
Posted by: Right of Center | May 4, 2006 11:14:02 AM
You know, the judicial branch is just as important as the legislative branch. Just because you don’t think gay people deserve equal rights under the law (e.g., marriage), doesn’t mean judges can’t rule that they do.
Posted by: tattler | May 4, 2006 11:17:31 AM
I do think gay people deserve equal rights under the law. The law does not provide for "gay marriage" so, obviously the law needs changing.
Posted by: Right of Center | May 4, 2006 11:23:04 AM
Does the law provide for citizens to be treated equally? If not, what country are we in?
Posted by: TATTLER | May 4, 2006 11:25:24 AM
"Does the law provide for citizens to be treated equally?"
Not necessarily, thus the need for continued legislation.
Posted by: Right of Center | May 4, 2006 11:27:17 AM
Equal treatment under the law is a corner stone of democracy.
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Posted by: lasermike026 | May 4, 2006 11:33:07 AM
Furthermore...
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Posted by: lasermike026 | May 4, 2006 11:35:03 AM
We’re actually having an argument about whether or not the United States (land of the free, right?) bestows equal rights to all its citizens. Amazing. That someone had to point out a passage in the Constitution that bestows equal rights to everyone signifies a problem with the way the other side thinks.
Posted by: tattler | May 4, 2006 11:38:40 AM
Its easilier to have to wool pulled over your eyes if you do not know what the constitution says.
Posted by: lasermike026 | May 4, 2006 11:46:43 AM
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
I have had this argument about 60 million times and I don't want to again.
But, to help understand the issue, I'll summarize the position.
Gay and straight people are free under the laws as currently written in most states to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gay people and cohabitating straight people *choose* not to. But the law treats them equally. You can argue that marriage laws don't specify gender. But unless you think that the authors of these statutes had homosexual marriage in mind the gender is implied.
So, the argument goes, there is now *existing* right of gay marriage for the courts to *uphold*. So to *add* gay marriage, the legislature must add a statute.
I am in favor of such a statute.
You may not agree with that argument, but it is a valid one.
Posted by: Right of Center | May 4, 2006 11:47:53 AM
Walk a mile in my moccasins...
The health benefit provided domestic partnerships is taxed as a fringe benefit by the FEDS. We are far from equal.Bloomfield is moving in the right direction by confronting homopobia in their local government
Posted by: Foster | May 4, 2006 11:51:57 AM
"Equal treatment under the law is a corner stone of democracy".
American democracy, lasermike.
Did you know, for example, that citizens of most eurpoean democracies do not have a right of free speech?
Posted by: Right of Center | May 4, 2006 11:54:26 AM
"The health benefit provided domestic partnerships is taxed as a fringe benefit by the FEDs."
As would be a heterosexual "domestic partnership".
Posted by: Right of Center | May 4, 2006 11:56:13 AM
Hey ROC!
You have comments about EVERYTHING! I was looking forward to seeing your reaction to the comment about Round Trip Fare – you know, the comment about how no one remembered to insure the restaurant and now it looks like the taxpayers are going to get hit with the bill?
The only reason I can think you didn’t respond is that somehow you’re “connected” with the foul up! Do YOU work for the town? Was it your job to see to it that the restaurant had proper insurance?
I mean like this is the ONLY Baristanet post you’ve EVER missed!
Posted by: cheeze | May 4, 2006 12:26:10 PM
a general question: why does everything have to be a conspiracy or a hidden agenda or some other sort of wrongdoing?why all the sniping?
what ever happened to benefit of the doubt, not jumping to conclusions, dialogue, listening, trying to see each others point of view?
Posted by: fuzzy | May 4, 2006 1:09:53 PM
Just like the privilidged class to downplay injustice in society
shame on you
Posted by: Foster | May 4, 2006 1:35:12 PM
Dear Right of Center,
I don't believe you work for the town, and I don't think you have a "vested" interested in this issue. But I'm very interested in your opinion re. the train station situation. Quite frankly, I think your point of view is often right on the mark!
So, what do you think?
Posted by: pennypincher | May 4, 2006 1:37:35 PM
ROC, for somebody who has gone all-out trying to assert equal protection and basic fairness arguments in the context of speculative land use, you sure seem inflexible in seeing an equal protection argument in favor of the gov't being agnostic regarding the genitals of adults who want to marry.
Posted by: appletony | May 4, 2006 1:38:35 PM
penny, I don't really know anything about it. I have not seen it reported that the insurance was "forgotten".
So what is there to "say" ?
If it is not insured and the township has to pay full price for restoration, I would hope we'd do an inexpensive and "functional" station rather than a "victorian jewel". Taxes are too high.
Posted by: Right of Center | May 4, 2006 1:41:07 PM