As mentioned earlier in this blog, the second sentence of The Amendment has some people concerned.
You can find the relevant post here.
In Ohio, judges have dismissed domestic violence cases brought against men who abused their girlfriends, simply because they were not married.
Perhaps. On the other hand, assault/battery charges could have been brought. This is not a "fact-laden" precis of the case(s) in question.
The Michigan attorney general has ruled that their ban overturns domestic partner policies for state and local government employees.
Yup. That's exactly one of the two reasons for the second sentence. The question here, however, is whether the taxpayer is required to provide "family coverage" for roommates of civil servants.
A Utah attorney is claiming the ban there invalidates a restraining order taken out against a man by his ex-girlfriend.
Attorneys claim a lot of things. That's what attorneys are paid to do. And the PR value for some practitioners is very high, too. Ask Sen. Feinie (D-Al Quaeda.)
A court in Ohio is being asked to void a child custody agreement between a same-sex couple.
Another case of "so what?" It ain't happened, yet. May never happen. And as usual, this precis is devoid of a lot of relevant facts.
A number of public employers in Wisconsin--from La Crosse to Milwaukee to Sun Prairie--currently offer domestic partner benefits, and those would undoubtedly be challenged in court. The City of Madison Attorney, the Dane County Corporation Counsel, the Madison Common Council, and the Milwaukee Common Council have all spoken out against the ban because they fear it would overturn existing domestic partner policies.
Yup. It might, indeed. Note well: these are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, not private companies.
Generally, the "spread fear, doubt, and uncertainty" campaign is a good tactic, and some people will be swayed. But this laundry list of maybes and taxpayer-funded ripoffs is not substantial.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment