“The Public Employees Benefit Board today voted to extend benefits to the domestic partners of state employees,” reported blogger Anjeanette Damon for Inside Politics on Thursday. “But with a $3 million a year expected price tag, Gov. Jim Gibbons won’t fund it. Ben Kieckhefer sidestepped the question of whether Gibbons believes domestic partners should receive the same benefits as married couples…”
Ah, that old equal protection thing. This is what happens when the government decides to award some citizens, but not others.
The fact is, paying for the health insurance of one’s spouse while not paying for the health insurance of a domestic partner - especially considering the fact that Nevada’s Constitution now bans gays from enjoying the same fruits of marital bliss as, say, the governor - will be viewed by many, and eventually perhaps even the courts, as a violation of the equal protection clause.
And here’s where things get even stickier: If the excuse not to extend health insurance benefits to domestic partners is rooted in the fact that it would cost the state money it doesn’t have, then why should the spouses of government workers continue to get that benefit which taxpayers cannot afford? I mean, don’t you have to either give the benefit to everyone or give it to no one?
Something tells me we haven’t heard the last of this.
Posted on June 7th, 2008 by chuckmuth
Filed under: Nevada
Why should being married or queers living together give them any more rights or benefits than singles living by them self minding their own business???