Sean Larson takes a look at how messy things get when we’re forced to live in a “separate, but not exactly equal” world of domestic partnerships:
I now pronounce you wife and wife. You may keep the alimony.
When Ron Garber’s ex-wife started living with another woman, he made his alimony payments. When she took the other woman’s last name as her own, he continued making the payments. When she entered into a domestic partnership with the other woman, meant to carry the same benefits as marriage, Garber decided that he was probably done with the alimony. After all, California law states that alimony stops when the person receiving the payments gets remarried, so Garber felt that he was in the right.
How do you think things worked out for Ron? Sean gives the rest of the story on his site.
From my MN State House of Representative, Jim Davnie’s (62A) email update:
Domestic Partner Benefits
Readers may remember that for a short period of time the city of Minneapolis offered equal employment benefits to gay and lesbian employees. This practice ended when a lawsuit successfully argued that state law did not allow the City to offer benefits to domestic partners.
Currently over 300 Minnesota companies offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. Next week I will be introducing legislation that reinstates the basic principle of home rule and recognizes the right of local units of government, and locally elected public officials to determine the policies that work best in their own areas of the state. Whether or not to offer domestic partner benefits should be the decision of each local unit of government and not subject to interference from state government.
Rock on. What is your rep’s position on treating all humans fairly?