New bill stirs old controversy: So what's 'immoral' about domestic-partner benefits?

Two religious-right groups in Minnesota are fighting a bill that grants local control in the designation of benefits for dependents of municipal employees. The bill aims to close a gap left by a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that said under current Minnesota law, communities could not offer benefits to partners of unmarried employees.

If the current bill passed, it could provide health-insurance options that now don't exist to gay and lesbian couples. A gay police officer in St. Paul could elect to cover his partner. A lesbian Parks and Recreation employee in Duluth could cover her partner. A gay city council member in Minneapolis could add his partner to the benefits package offered by the city. And these examples could only happen if the local governing bodies in those cities vote to allow it.The Minnesota Family Council's Minnesota for Marriage and Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage, both funded heavily by Deephaven businessman Robert Cummings, have come out against local control in this case. Communities can only be trusted with local control in areas of education and taxes, but determining benefits for local employees should be left up to people who know better: the state, or as it's called in conservative circles, the nanny state. What's the motivation behind abandoning local control?

The implications of that gay police officer obtaining benefits for his partner are earth-shattering, we are told. “We see the breakdown of the family, and I think it’s traceable to the breakup of marriages through divorce, out-of-wedlock births and things of that nature," said MFC President Tom Prichard when Gov. Ventura explored partner benefits for state employees. The MFC manual goes even further: "The implications go far beyond health care benefits. The issue represents a significant step in overhauling the mores of society." Is the true motivation for preventing a gay city council member from securing health care for his partner because it could result in out-of-wedlock births? A massive increase in divorce?? A complete overhaul of societal mores???

Jeff Davis, president of MCDM, reveals the true motives of these groups in their press release: No benefits of any kind for homos in committed relationships. Ever. "The sponsors of this bill are attempting to give homosexuals special rights by granting them marital privileges without the responsibilities of a marital contract." Hunter said it better than I could: " 'Cause, you know, it would be awfully hypocritical of someone to oppose extending domestic partnership benefits to a homosexual couple on the grounds that they weren't married if one simultaneously opposed the right of that couple to get married."

The motivation behind these groups: They don't like 'homosexuals'.

MCDM has singled out Republican Sen. Paul Koering, who is one of three Republican legislators supporting the bill. The group sent out tailor-made press releases in his district and was the only legislator named. The difference between Koering and his fellow Republican co-sponsors? Koering is a 'homosexual'.

"It's pretty clear they're singling me out again," Koering told the Brainerd Dispatch. "It's a group that is...I think we can all figure out what their true motivation is."