Own It
ByTomorrow night, City Council will decide whether or not to extend the same benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners that they now give to married city employees. Many of you have written letters to Council and to the Citizen-Times supporting the initiative — for that, I and so many in Asheville are deeply grateful. But now there’s one last thing to do…show up to the meeting and put a human face to it all.
The arguments for Same-Sex Domestic Partnership Benefits are compelling, and the case will be made persuasively by Councilman Smith tomorrow night. For that, I am also deeply grateful. Gordon’s leadership and his hard work on this issue —despite a lot of cautionary advice to the contrary — has earned my eternal respect and admiration. He’s stuck his neck out for something that he believes in because he knows it’s the right thing to do. That’s a rare quality in anyone, much less in an elected official.
But now we have to do our part for him. After Gordon’s done making his presentation, the subject will be open for public comment. We’ll hear a lot from the other side. But you know…as controversial as this issue might be for some folks around here, much of the rest of the country has already moved on.
Thousands of companies — including half of the Fortune 500 — have realized for years that Domestic Partnership Benefits are a great recruiting tool to attract a diverse mix of talented people, understanding that most job candidates would rather work for employers that are considered socially conscious and diverse.
Many local governments have caught up with the times as well. Here’s a partial list of cities and counties that already recognize same-sex domestic partnerships, some going back nearly 20 years:
- Eureka Springs, Arkansas
- Phoenix, Arizona
- Tucson, Arizona
- Berkeley, California
- Beverly Hills, California
- Cathedral City, California
- Davis, California
- Laguna Beach, California
- Long Beach, California
- Los Angeles County
- Oakland, California
- Palm Springs, California
- Palo Alto, California
- Petaluma, California
- Sacramento, California
- San Francisco, California
- Marin County, California
- San Rafael, California
- Santa Barbara County
- City of Santa Barbara, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- West Hollywood, California
- Boulder, Colorado
- Denver, Colorado
- Hartford, Connecticut
- Broward County, Florida
- Key West, Florida
- Miami Beach, Florida
- Miami-Dade County, Florida
- West Palm Beach, Florida
- Athens, Georgia
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Iowa City, Iowa
- Cook County, Illinois
- Chicago, Illinois
- Oak Park, Illinois
- Urbana, Illinois
- Lawrence, Kansas
- New Orleans, Lousiana
- Boston, Massachusetts
- Brewster, Massachusetts
- Brookline, Massachusetts
- Cambridge, Massachusetts
- Nantucket, Massachusetts
- Provincetown, Massachusetts
- Portland, Maine
- Ann Arbor, Michigan
- Duluth, Minnesota
- Minneapolis, Minnesota
- St. Paul, Minnesota
- Columbia, Missouri
- Kansas City, Missouri
- St. Louis, Missouri
- Carrboro, North Carolina
- Chapel Hill, North Carolina
- City of Durham, North Carolina
- Durham County, North Carolina
- Greensboro, North Carolina
- Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
- Orange County, North Carolina
- Albany, New York
- East Hampton, New York
- City of Ithaca, New York
- Town of Ithaca, New York
- Rockland County, New York
- City of New York, New York
- Suffolk County, New York
- Rochester, New York
- Southampton, New York
- Westchester County, New York
- Cleveland, Ohio
- Cleveland Heights, Ohio
- Ashland, Oregon
- Eugene, Oregon
- Multnomah County, Oregon
- Portland, Oregon
- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- Travis County, Texas
- Austin, Texas
- Salt Lake City, Utah
- Lacey, Washington
- Olympia, Washington
- Seattle, Washington
- Tumwater, Washington
- Dane County, Wisconsin
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- Washington, DC
Although some folks will argue that same-sex relationships are inconsistent with their religious beliefs and therefore the city shouldn’t recognize — much less extend benefits to — these partnerships, it’s important to remember that not all people of faith agree on this issue; Asheville has a history of our clergy standing on the side of fairness, equality and respect for her LGBT citizens. Brave voices like Jubilee’s Reverend Howard Hanger, Unitarian Universalist Church’s Reverend Mark Ward, First Congregational United Church of Christ’s Reverend Joe Hoffman, The Reverend Canon Charlotte Cleghorn of the Cathedral of All Souls, and the Church of the Advocate’s Reverend Ham Fuller…to name but just a few.
So tomorrow night, I’m asking for your help. I’m asking each one of you to come to City Council and voice your support for fairness and equality. Tell your story if you have one; but know, too, that even just standing at the mic and telling Council that you support Same-Sex Domestic Partnership Benefits will send a very powerful message.
Let’s join the other cities and counties and the thousands of businesses and organizations across the country in doing the right thing — and in the process, enhance Asheville’s reputation as a friendly city that embraces diversity and fully appreciates all of her citizens.
Tomorrow night we have an opportunity to create some positive change in Asheville. Let’s make it happen.
33 Comments
February 8th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
It looks like Domestic Partnership Benefits may come up on the agenda earlier than originally anticipated. If you plan on speaking, please get to City Hall (2nd Floor) between 4:30 and 4:45 pm.
Hope to see you there!
February 8th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I’m sure someone’s already figured this out, but how would the city differentiate between a couple and a domestic partner? Does domestic partnership increase after adoption of a policy like this?
Rate this comment:
1 
0
February 8th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
A Same-Sex Domestic Partnership is defined here as two folks who live together and take care of one another in a committed, loving relationship. They can’t be related by blood closer than would bar marriage in NC, they’re not married or related by marriage, they share common life necessities, they’re 18 years old or older, they’re competent to enter into a contract, they declare that they are each other’s sole domestic partner, and they agree to be responsible for each other’s welfare.
The definition is pretty strict, actually. Much stricter, in fact, than for two heterosexual married people in North Carolina.
As to your question about Domestic Partnership rates themselves increasing, my sense is that they would (although there’s no empirical evidence that same-sex couples participate in Domestic Partnership benefits at any higher rate than do married folks). If so, more’s the better: promoting stability and commitment is a good thing for everyone.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Like Pabley R, I’m most curious about how a domestic partner is going to be defined since NC doesn’t allow same sex marriage or even civil unions.
Rate this comment:
5 
1
February 8th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
And you answered my question before I could post it.
February 8th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
There’d also be some additional requirements. Persons registering as Domestic Partners would have to produce some proof of that financial interdependence — for example a shared lease, a shared utility bill, a mutual bank account, that sort of thing.
Domestic Partners would also have to agree to notify the City should the partnership come to an end (like married couples do).
February 8th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
I have a “theoretical” question but I’m not sure how to word it.
What makes same-sex domestic relationships more deserving of employer benefits than other relationships that are equally financially involved and/or dependent? For instance, an older sibling who is financially responsible for a younger sibling or perhaps even a niece or nephew (the adult relative providing the younger child with shelter, food, clothing, school expenses, etc. I suppose that in the case of a longstanding heterosexual domestic relationship of non-married people it could be argued that marriage is an option that would resolve the issue. ?
I have some experience with the sibling situation and can guarantee you that it would have improved life greatly if I could have put that child on my group medical insurance.
Just wondering.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Ivy,
We’re dealing here specifically with the equivalent of spousal benefits. You’re right about heterosexual domestic partnerships — marriage is an option that is available to those folks. Not so with persons of the same sex who are in committed relationships.
As for the question of younger dependent siblings, I hear what you’re saying — and frankly, it’s a good point. I don’t know how it works. But maybe if the Democrats in Congress would grow a pair and actually pass comprehensive health care reform it could be addressed.
MM
February 8th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Oh, so it’s the Democrats fault? So many Republicans are in favor and just waiting to pass health care reform.
One wonders sometimes, Michael, where exactly your true values lay. We clearly cannot rely on what you write, or say, from issue to issue because you glibly put forth whatever seems to, for you, win the day.
Integrity might be something to which you might aspire.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I don’t chime in very often here but I read this blog most days. Diogenes to hear you say that Michael should aspire for some integrity, is humorous at best. What about Michael lacks integrity? Does he steal others ideas without citing his sources? Or do his values not line up with what you perceive as your values? I am curious how Michael’s integrity comes into question here?
February 8th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Yes it IS the Dems fault for not moving health care forward. To be blind to the nefarious plans of the Republicans is to be blind to reality itself. Bipartisanship in this environment is naive at best. Corruption is a more accurate description of conservative Dems in the pocket of big insurance and Pharma.
Of course all the Republicans are corrupt to the core, that’s not the issue. The issue is corrupt Democrats stabbing their President in the back.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Good luck tomorrow! I’m out of town but wish I could be there.
Rate this comment:
7 
0
February 9th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Diogenes,
Don Yelton called me a “low class prostitute” in a recent email rant — so you might be on to something.
Cheers,
MM
February 9th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Welcome to the club, Michael. Don’s raved about me as well. I consider it a badge of honor.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Oh, I do Ralph. I do.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Don called me a Wiccan once. He sent that piece of absurdism to the New York Times and Washington Post. Funny, but I must have missed it when it went to print.
Rate this comment:
1 
6
February 9th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Thanks for this post, Michael. I plan to be at the City Council meeting tonight in support of same-sex domestic partner benefits for city employees.
Rate this comment:
7 
0
February 9th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Thank you, Bruce!
I’d imagine that the folks who disagree with us on this will be out in full force tonight. Let’s get there early — between 4 and 4:30 — so we get the good seats
MM
Rate this comment:
4 
3
February 9th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Ball Faced Lies!!
To have a peek inside Yelton’s ball faced head, click here.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Meeting still on if it snows?
Rate this comment:
5 
1
February 9th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Yes, Lindsey.
Rate this comment:
3 
2
February 9th, 2010 at 10:01 am
If the meeting goes long, could you ask the Mayor if we could break at 8pm for American Idol? Tonight’s Ellen DeGeneres’s first night as a judge.
Rate this comment:
1 
6
February 9th, 2010 at 10:03 am
No, Michael.
Rate this comment:
4 
1
February 9th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Bill Russell just emailed Council to let us know that he’s come down with strep throat and won’t be able to attend tonight’s meeting. His whole family has it. I hate that he won’t be able to attend tonight, but I’d rather he keep his 102 degree fever at home.
Feel better, Bill!
Rate this comment:
0 
5
February 9th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
That’s a shame.
My partner Mike and I were really looking forward to his yes vote. And I know Bill’s old friend Jim Cavener and his long-time partner Alan Robinson were too. Oh yeah, and Byron Greiner & his partner of 17 years, Doug Gall. And, well….y’all get the idea.
Feel better Bill!
Rate this comment:
2 
4
February 10th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
To those who quote the bible:
http://21.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvqo8b6iZh1qzo96eo1_500.jpg
Rate this comment:
4 
1
February 10th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I’ve been in an unmarried hetero relationship for 14 years and I definitely oppose this yes vote. If I worked for the city, I’d see this as simple discrimination against me and mine. This is an example you are trying to set for businesses here, and it’s half-cocked.
Just what is the rationale for excluding unmarried straight couples? That we can be married by the state?
Gordon, Michael? I’m not trolling you.
Rate this comment:
4 
3
February 10th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
You nailed it, Jim. This measure addresses NC’s prohibition on same-sex marriage. It allows all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to have a path to benefits. Heterosexual couples have that path already, though some choose to remain unmarried.
Rate this comment:
0 
7
February 11th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Jim,
Do you oppose the city giving benefits to the spouses of married city employees on the same grounds?
MM
Rate this comment:
4 
1
February 11th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
not to speak for Jim (although I am his “unrecognized domestic partner” but, yes, i would say that I (we) oppose the city giving benefits to the “spouses” OR “domestic partners” of all city employees on the “same grounds”. Why should “married” people get more benefits than singles, in any case. Wouldn’t a single mom be more in need of such benfits than a “married” one? and why should the State decide, in any way, what is a “better” arrangement? I thought our Constitution had this whole thing about “separation of Church and State?”
Rate this comment:
6 
0
February 11th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
How are we going to define partners in this new century?
I don’t oppose the city giving benefits to anybody. My problem with this vote is that it discriminates against people who choose to keep their relationships secular.
Rate this comment:
2 
4
February 11th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Jim and claire,
I understand your perspective on this, and I appreciate your willingness to communicate it so clearly and civilly here. The word in your descriptions that stands our for me is “choose”. You get to choose. They don’t. It’s not a perfect solution, but it allows for the free exercise of choice where it’s lacking now.
The current that runs under this entire debate is the simple idea that humans ought to be able to access and afford health care. My guess is that we would all agree on that.
Rate this comment:
0 
5
February 13th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
ll fmly bnfts dscrmnt gnst sngl (nd chldlss)ppl, bt lt’s ddrss ths ltr ftr wnnng symblc vctry fr gys nw, s Nwmn sggsts.
Rate this comment:
4 
1