Monday, October 03, 2005

Salt Lake City Council

Jill Love, Eric Jergensen, and Dave Buhler are the Salt Lake City Councilmembers who have been working on the new insurance coverage for live in dependents. Whereas Mayor Rocky Anderson's executive order was not intended to provide benefits but to pick a political fight on behalf of a specific group The City Council's alternative is fair, equitable, and makes the most sense for the families of city employees. Councilmembers Love, Jergensen, and Buhler understand their responsibility is to the city employees and their needs, Their responsibility is to not separate them into groups and pretend to make political statements on their behalf while leaving them without insurance benefits.


Blogger Shawn said...

Well that's interesting. Why, Love, Buhler, and Jergensen coincidentally discovered their "responsibility" when Rocky proposed his plan.

Rocky saw inherent unfairness in the current benefits program because it excluded unmarried partners. The City Council wanted to dilute the gay aspect and is now proposing a somewhat irresponsible wholesale expansion of benefit eligibility.

What a wonderful world you must live in Ethan, where Love, Jergensen, and Buhler only act on the kindness of their hearts.

10/03/2005 12:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rocky only saw inherent unfairness to the gay community. It had nothing to do with unmarried partners, but with his political statement and agenda.

The members of the city council actually used reasoning and intellect to realize that the program needs to be expanded so as not to just benefit gay couples, which would result in dividing the employees into 'groups'.

Rocky was just picking a fight. In the end it is going to work to the advantage of the council members in 'Ethans wonderful world' because whether or not they their discovered their responsibility before or after they are still being more compassionate than OFF HIS ROCKER ANDERSON.


10/03/2005 02:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Dexter said...

Would that be a retroactive aplication of intellect and reasoning, logan? cause they didn't really care one way or another before screwball anderson took up his cross.
This is still very much about amendment three- supporters claimed it wouldn't hurt or disenfanchise anyone; but now that someone is challenging that claim, they refuse to defend it-
thus diluting the proposal so that it can't be seen as a challenge to said amendment.

why do you think they don't want to defend it logan?

10/03/2005 04:03:00 PM  
Blogger Shawn said...

Logan - Rocky's original proposal was to extend benefits to all domestic partners, gay or straight. This was in response to several requests from City employees. You see, they requested a change in administrative policy from the administrative head. In a strong-mayor form of government, that administrative head is hizzoner, the Mayor.

The Mayor responds to a request. Heather May and Brady Snyder use their time-tested rocky,gay! newspaper selling strategy (equally as effective as the rocky/booze! method). Then LaVar Christensen opens his big fat ignorant mouth. And the Mayor is picking a fight?


10/03/2005 04:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you say that the Mayor was responding to a request, he is actually responding to the gay community request only. If the live in dependents making the request were not the homosexual community then it is fair to say that Rocky would not have batted an eye. I firmly believe that he would have done nothing to provide the benefits otherwise.

The city council may or may not have cared before Rocky took up his cross, but the fact remains that the city council is now involved and making sure that the proposal is fair for all dependants. For this reason I am backing the council.


10/04/2005 08:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Dexter said...

So logan can we assume you voted against amendment three? Since, you know, you're so concerned about fairness for everybody?

who are you kidding? That is, aside from yourself?

10/04/2005 04:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have missed the point entirely. Rocky is going to get the benefits for his hoomosexual buddies. He doesn't care about anyone else. Since it looks like it is going to happen the city council has expanded and included everyone.

Regardless of how I voted on the amendment, I am talking about this situation.

I would rather not see it come up at all. I think the benefits should be for legally married couples and that is it, but like I said I can't have it my way all the time so given the current situation I agree with the city council.

If it is going to happen I hope it happens for everyone and not just to benefit Rocky and his one sided agenda.


10/05/2005 10:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Dexter said...

no logan, you're missing the point. How you voted IS relevant to this situation.

You claim you support fairness, but had you and the rest of the homophobes in this state cared about fairness 11 months ago, Rocky wouldn't have had to pick this fight.

You want benefits for legally married couple only, but refuse to allow a portion of the population to legally marry. This is fairness, how?

I understand you don't want to talk about the amendment, but this is a direct result.

10/05/2005 01:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rocky has overstepped the majority vote in this democracy to support only the gay community. Because of it I am forced to be involved in an issue that I already voted on. For this reason I am voicing my support in favor of the council.

Unfortunately he does not care what the majority voted or how to represent this city in a fair manner. It all comes back to his agenda. His anti-mormon, anti-conservative agenda.

I have appreciated this debate, but now that you have resorted to personal attacks and calling me a homophobe I will no longer respond.

6 year olds resort to name calling. Usually you are very intellectual, and although we may not agree I do enjoy reading your posts. Keep the personal attacks out and you might keep some respect.



10/05/2005 02:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Dexter said...

Two points:

The difference between democracy and mobocracy is the willingness to protect the rights of the minority. If tomorrow, the US held a referendum and outlawed mormons for example, would that be fair? just? right? Make it legal to kill them? Do you get it yet?

Secondly, if the issue is settled as you assume, why won't the council simply challenge the proposal in court?
Give up? Because the amendment would be struck down as unconstitutional.

As for the homophobe tantrum, dude grow up: Your condescending tone and partenalistic lecture is just as childish as anything I said.

10/05/2005 04:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Dexter said...

and you still haven't answered my fairness questions.

Could that be the real reason you're refusing further comment? hmmmmmmm

10/05/2005 04:22:00 PM  
Blogger pramahaphil said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10/06/2005 09:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a crock and a another good example of trying to one up the Mayor. Shouldn't the council take a test to get this position?

10/31/2005 01:51:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home