In August, 2009 with the adoption of the 2010 city budget, the City of El Paso passed a measure that extended health benefits to domestic partners of city employees. This act touched off the ugly side of our city that includes a law suit filed by Mayor John Cook.
Today, this topic is in the daily news with strong feelings on all sides of the matter, and it is, quite disturbing. Law suits and counter law suits and somewhere along the way city officials will be party ot a law suit for actions taking in their official capacity and tax payers will pay for a legal defense. It started with a simple vote, passed 7 – 1, with the only dissent being based on the State of Texas ban on gay marriage.
This action was taken on the heels of a local scandal that drew national media attention when gay men were expelled from a restaurant because they were kissing. Before this local scandal there did not seem to be a moral imperative extend benefits to domestic partners of city employees. The timing of this action made me suspect that the some city representatives were seizing the moment to gain political favor in a city that has an almost universal allegiance with the democratic party.
An active religious group launched an effort to get an ordinance on the ballot that would deny this benefit. At the core of this group’s protestations was their view about homosexuality. The effort was successful and an ordinance was put on the ballot and it was approved at the next election by a majority of voters. Unfortunately, that ballot was poorly written.
The wording on the ballot was such that it inadvertently eliminated health benefits for some retired city workers, some foster children and some relatives of city employees who were disabled. This is odd because foster children are covered by Medicaid, as are many people who have disabilities. City council, armed with the inadvertent effect of the new ordinance, overturned the ordinance, a political misstep that angered a majority of voters.
The religious group, sticking to it’s venomous anti homosexual script launched a recall petition drive to remove three city servants from elected office. The petition drive was widely successful, causing authorities to plan for a recall election. The city mayor filed a suit to stop the recall election.
On one side is a rather “progressive” city council and mayor, none of which are eligible to hold their seat another term. They will not have to live with the consequence of their actions on this matter. On another side are the religious opponents who quote scripture to speak out against homosexuality and they do so in a self-righteous, not-too-Christian tone. Another group includes those who are furious that City Council overturned the results of a city wide vote on the matter and do not necessarily agree with religious faction’s anti homosexual agenda. Curiously, little has been heard from those city employees who inadvertently lost benefits because of the wording on the ballot. Little is heard from those unmarried heterosexual couples. And the silence from the gay community is deafening. How odd is that?
The faction who is angry that the majority vote was overturned has cause to be angry. Given the current mood of discontent across the nation that both big business and big government are running rough shod over the will, and pocketbook, of the voter, that faction is getting more vocal. They are complaining that their right to vote is being usurped. Some fear that future votes might be overturned, for example a public bond election that voters reject might be overturned. A city charter referendum might be rejected by the voters and then overturned by city council. To many of those voters, it is a matter of losing the sense of majority rule on a particular issue that causes concern. Why bother voting if elected officials aren’t going to honor the will of the voters.
At the heart of the matter is the effort to extend health benefits to domestic partners of city employees; however it was never really about domestic partners. It was always about extending health benefits to homosexual partners of city employees, and City Representative Susie Byrd said so in a blog entry where she described how she was moved by a gay man’s plea. However, I guess that extending health benefits to homosexual partners of city employees was not politically feasible so they expanded their ordinance to domestic partners, including heterosexual couples who live together. According to the news reports, this entire scandal is about extending health benefits to 19 partners of city employees, only two of which are homosexual.
A closer look at this matter is warranted as the voters consider their options. Unmarried heterosexual couples who have been living together have declined health insurance with full consent. They did so by remaining unmarried. They could have gotten married and been covered, but they made an informed decision not to do so. Insurance is available if they want it, as soon as they get married. In the midst of the scandal, some clergy offered free wedding services for them if they wanted to get married. If they have chosen not to get married to access health insurance then why should anyone go out of their way to provide them access to health insurance? And worse, why would anyone want to bear the expense to do so? Besides, taxpayers fund a public hospital and community health centers and public clinics so it seems that much has been done to extend medical care to that segment.
A progressive city council could have chosen to adopt the State of Texas definition for a common law marriage and used that definition in its benefits package. But that action would not have covered homosexual partners and the ends would have been achieved. A progressive city council could have chosen to include in its benefits package all those who live in the home of city employees, including extended family and friends. But that action would have included too many others. Or city council could have extended coverage to unmarried homosexual couple only, both of them. What would have been wrong with that?
The measure to extend benefits to those who had not been traditionally covered could have been handled differently to remove the complaints of the anti tax faction. Domestic partners could have been in a different category what would require the city employee to bear ALL of the expense of the insurance premium with no contribution from the tax payer. City council could have chosen to extend coverage ONLY to those who were inadvertently dropped from coverage. Why did City Council not consider other options? Why did they continue to roll into this tunnel with full view of the on coming lights?
This issue took a life of its own. In November 2010 voters approved a ban on health benefits. In June, 2011 city council rejected 55% of the voters and extended the benefits anyway. The religious group launched a successful petition drive to recall the mayor and two city representatives. The mayor filed suit to halt the recall election and has lost at every turn thus far. Religious groups can be expected to do what they do, they are, after all, religious folks. It’s what they do. Asking them to not do religious things is an exercise in futility. Expecting them to do otherwise is foolish.
Throwing out the separation of church and state argument is hypocritical. I don’t know a single government official or politician who willingly gives up religious holidays. If you want to separate church and state then work on Christmas and Good Friday, and on the Sabbath. Take those holidays off of the government work schedule and keep government doors open for business on those days.
I don’t blame the religious group for this mess. I don’t blame the homosexual community for this mess. I don’t blame anti tax zealots for this mess. I blame those on City Council who, like a dog with a bone, can’t let it go, and won’t consider other options. They are bent on extending health benefits to two people and don’t have the courage of their convictions to say so, to say that they want health benefits for homosexual partners and to write an ordinance to that effect.
A local priest bought a series of newspaper ads. In the ads he professed Catholic doctrine in regards to homosexuality. That act, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. One expects preachers to preach. In this case he did so in the local newspaper at a time when anti homosexual rhetoric is heating up. The Bishop reassigned him to a parish in a rural community far away. One could say the priest was banished – for professing his faith. This parish priest had won local acclaim for observing traditional Catholic practices and giving mass in Latin. The Bishop’s actions have alienated a vocal faction of Catholics who think the local diocese should be more assertive and he upset a loyal bunch of parishioners who want their pastor to be returned.
It’s not about being a progressive community that attracts big business. All the things that the city has done to attract big business hasn’t worked thus far, health benefits for homosexual partners is not a magic bullet that will attract big business and high paying jobs. It’s not about increasing the number of persons in the city with health insurance, this measure only covered 19 more people. It’s not about money because the total cost for those 19 covered lives is really not that much.
It’s about being politically correct, at all costs. It’s much like republicans rallying against taxes, regardless of the consequence. Tow the party line, damn the torpedoes. Be politically correct at all costs, even when the cost is at the expense of common sense.
It’s ok for elected officials to put their career on the line for their convictions, but is it necessary to prolong a divisive issue. The mayor could choose to drop his law suit to stop the recall election and take his chances in a recall vote. If a majority of the voters want to keep these three officials in office they will do so and the three will be vindicated. City council has an opportunity to introduce another city ordinance that reconciles the will of the majority of the voters. However well intentioned these three folks might be, they have created a hostile environment for the homosexual community, as if they didn’t face enough hostility already. And they have created a hostile environment for the faith based community.
Recently the County Commissioners Court had an opportunity to do what the city did, they were smart and stayed away from that hornets nest. Personally I think that unmarried heterosexual city employees who have a live-in partner should not be covered under the same plan as city employees who are married. The only thing keeping them from health benefits is their own desire to be unmarried. I think the mayor should drop his law suit and allow the recall vote to move forward without opposition. These three folks can solicit campaign contributions and with those funds take their case to the voters. I think they have an obligation to revisit their position and introduce a compromise measure. I think that if they really want to extend benefits to gay partners of city employees they should say so and quit skirting the issue. I think that the three officials would have a very difficult time getting political contributions to support that cause.
