"Greensboro Mayor Keith Holliday is putting aside caution about cohabitation and crimes against nature, pledging to move forward this month to implement a policy extending domestic partner benefits to gay and lesbian employees of the city of Greensboro," reports Jordan Green in Yes Weekly.

Good job, Keith. Sometimes I'm proud to be from Greensboro.

Comments

[sean coon]

i couldn't agree more. now i'll go out on a limb and bet this post will become another 50+ comment thread of twisted perspectives...

[Samuel Spagnola]

A lawsuit waiting to happen...

[chip]

This will be a huge story- the benefits issue-and I predict the end to Keith's career-unless he becomes a Democrat.

I know some people like Sean consider people who disagree twisted, but those folks are people like my parents and many quiet, middle of the roaders who think gay sex is wrong. They don't like to argue or make their beliefs public because they don't want to offend or be offended.

[Roch101]

Sam, who is going to sue whom?

Chip, Mayor Holliday is a Democrat.

[Samuel Spagnola]

You couldn't extend such a policy to just unmarried gay people and then you have the heterosexual same sex roommate issue. That's all I'm going to say before I engage in diversionary and pathetic rationalizations for statements that I never actually made in the first place. I'll let the rest of you hash this one out.

[Ed Cone]

Similar policies have not proved to be huge issues elsewhere, according to Jordan's article, and lawsuits seeking to overturn the policies have failed.

[Roch101]

You have a point, Sam. The easy solution is to make domestic partner benefits equally available regardless of sexual orientation. (Other cities have put into place criteria to define a domestic partner so that they don't run into "roommates" abusing the benefit.)

[Samuel Spagnola]

From the Jordan article, "Chapel Hill's policy has come under legal attack twice." I didn't say what the outcome of a lawsuit would be, I only suggested that lawsuits are likely. Either way, it costs money win or lose. Sine Die

[David Wharton]

From JG's article: "Mayor Holliday said ... he expects that Greensboro would extend domestic partnership benefits solely to same-sex couples because opposite-sex couples would have the option of getting married."

Why would a cohabiting, unmarried, heterosexual couple bother to get married in order to receive benefits when they could get them without marriage?

Or is the Mayor saying the city is going to deny the benefit to cohabiting heterosexuals? On what basis?

[Ed Cone]

DW, you lay it all out in your question and the quotes: bennies likely would be extended only to same-sex couples, because opposite-sex couples can marry, and so would not have the benefits offered to them as domestic partners.

[Matt Hill Comer]

YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY (I can't say that enough!)

:)

I'll let everybody fight out the whole extend/do not extend debate when it comes to benefits for unmarried heterosexual couples, because really... I'm too happy to debate right now.

YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY YAY :)

[Jim Caserta]

"Why would a cohabiting, unmarried, heterosexual couple bother to get married in order to receive benefits when they could get them without marriage?"

What do you think of a friend-status couple that gets married solely to receive benefits from an employer - mainly health insurance?

There should be/are much better reasons for the cohabitating couple to get married than finances.

[Jordan Green]

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos told me that Chapel Hill extends domestic partnership benefits to heterosexual couples in addition to same-sex couples. I would imagine that Carrboro, and Durham and Orange counties probably do so as well, although I could be wrong.

I didn't bring it up in my article because I thought it was a bit of a side conversation, but I think there is an interesting philosophical conversation to be had on whether cohabitating heterosexual couples should be required to get married — an act sometimes imbued with sacred and religious intentions — to receive equal benefits. Maybe I'll write that article sometime.

[Bubba]

"....I think there is an interesting philosophical conversation to be had on whether cohabitating heterosexual couples should be required to get married — an act sometimes imbued with sacred and religious intentions — to receive equal benefits."

If gay marriage becomes a reality in NC, would cohabitating gay partners also be required to get married too, as would be the case for hetro partners in that scenario?

[Ed Cone]

Seems reasonable to me, Bubba, although I don't think it's an issue we'll face in the near future. I would favor extending benefits to qualified cohabiting hetero couples, too, without requiring them to be married.

[Cara Michele]

I would favor extending benefits to every human being. Period. Yes, I'm still banging that drum for universal healthcare. ;)

[meblogin]

If benefits are going to be extended to same sex couples..then the same benefits should be available to opposite sex couples that are not married.

I believe folks need to rethink their position when they believe same sex couples are wrong...etc. In your church...ok...do what you will... BUT...please be certain that you show the same perspective to your 50% membership that have had at least one affair. Should you not ban them from being members as you do the homosexuals? The adultery topic is covered by one of the big 10....the same sex stuff...nada. Recognize the difference between what you believe as a result of religion and what you "should" believe as it relates to society. They are not the same...unless of course your religion is right and all the rest are wrong. Or maybe our societal norms should be the rule for the rest of the world...sigh...

Preventing a same sex couple or opposite sex couple from tax benefits and legal rights has nothing to do with church or beliefs....it has to do with equal rights in America.

(now I believe it could reach 50 or more...)

Have a nice day.

[Matt Hill Comer]

"If benefits are going to be extended to same sex couples..then the same benefits should be available to opposite sex couples that are not married."

And if benefits are going to be extended to opposite sex couples who get a marriage..then the same benefits should be available to same-sex couples who wish to be married.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Matt:

Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Period.

You should just accept civil benefits and be content, but I assume that is not possible for you.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Oh, and Sean, nothing is more of a twisted perspective than society smiling upon the distortion that is two people of the same sex having intimate relations and desires to carnally know that other person.

[Mr. Sun]

I strongly believe benefits should be denied to those who are adulterous. I also oppose benefits for those who married out of pure convenience, or for reasons which appear on the attached document labeled "Exhibit A - Unapproved Marital Reasons." I also believe that benefits should be denied to those who acted in ways that are not sanctioned by the rules of their own faith, such as divorced and remarried Catholics. I would also oppose benefits for anyone who is Ed Cone, because I desperately want to get in on some Ed Cone-hatin' and I don't currently have any good reason. Also, smokers. And people who wear collars that are white when their shirt is some other color because that looks gay.

[sean coon]

well, jeff, i'm sure you could have coffee one day with this mr. society person and straighten him out. good luck with that.

[Gate]

That is half my dress shirts, Mr. Sun. How about if the collar and cuffs are white? Does that make a difference to you? Save your ire for the short sleeve dress shirt, it should be a capital crime to wear one. Along with a wearing shirt and tie with no coat handy.

We think benefits should be available only to married couples. The city should not be in the business of defining what exactly a committed, but not legally binding, serious relationship is in order to determine eligibility.

[Matt Hill Comer]

Jeffrey said:
"Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Period.

You should just accept civil benefits and be content, but I assume that is not possible for you."

CIVIL BENEFITS IS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. I'm not trying to force your church or you to marry me. But what I do want are the full civil and legal benefits, protections and privileges afforded to opposite-sex couples through marriage. Domestic partnerships don't go anywhere near the point of offering the more than 1000 rights, benefits, protections and privileges of marriage.

Separate is not equal... Do we need a history lesson or do we really want to go down the "separate but equal" road yet again in our country's history of straight, white men oppressing any minority they can get their hands own (including Native Americans, African-Americans, women, children, and, yup, LGBT people).

[Matt Hill Comer]

get their hands own - should have been "on" not "own" lol

[Mr. Sun]

Gate: The collar and cuffs are not relevant. I'll tell you what. You seem like a nice guy. You're working hard over there bringing me soft porn on a regular basis and I've never said so much as "thank you." That's not nice of me. I'm going to let you off on a Gordon Gekko Fixation technicality, but you've got until Labor Day to get them out of your closet. No whining. Git 'er done.

[Billy The Blogging Poet]

Doing my part to reach that 50 comment prediction...

What in the Hell are people so damned scared of? Is it that equal rights for all might somehow make you feel a part of the great unwashed masses? I suspect the biggest problem we face in the world today is the "rightious attitude" that makes all of mankind want to feel as if they're somehow better than everyone else.

Well you know what? No matter if you're gay, straight, married, or "living in sin" you're still no better than the rest of us and the sooner you get over your fears and stop HIDING BEHIND YOUR BIBLES the better off the world will be.

[meblogin]

Why should we the taxpayer care if a "couple" is same or opposite sex?

We have all known couples that should be single and denied any benefits based on their love or lack thereof for each other. Why should sexual preference matter as it relates to society in legal terms? If my understanding is correct... a same sex couple can not visit their significant other in intensive care. Does this make sense to anyone?

Within my small group of family and friends I much prefer to be around a couple that cares deeply for each other than the all to frequent...."no idea why they are still married" type.

With respect to religion...this subject is quite different for me. Though not very educated concerning the Bible I am told that there are many rules and laws that are no longer followed. (and no...I can not share examples...maybe others can) Is homosexuality another one of those topics that should have it's rules lost or ignored in modern day? I think about the church "member", not visitor, that has separated from their spouse and lives with another and as an "unwed couple" continues to attend church. My personal opinion...cool...welcome....suspect my opinion is not shared by some readers here. (...though I speculate that the same reader will say nothing about this example that would cause problems in their church) True or false....or what am I missing here?? But, this same reader will telling the world that homosexuality is a sin...etc. Does God view the above two examples differently? I believe that God loves all.

I would hope that no one here desires the state/gov. telling us how to believe just as the church perhaps should not be defining what society views as normal or acceptable. What percentage of society attends church on a regular basis?

Both are interesting topics. Thanks Ed.

[sean coon]

i'm with you, meblogin. well put.

[Cara Michele]

meblogin: Any church should welcome in all who want to come and hear the Gospel. But if you find a church that claims the name of Jesus and also condones behavior that the Bible condemns (including adultery and cohabitation), then I suggest that you run, not walk, away from it. And I encourage you to become more educated about the Bible. Read it for yourself! :)

billy: None of us is better or worse than any other, we're all equally in need of a Savior. Don't assume that fear is the basis for every conviction. And I'll try to stand in front of, or least beside my Bible the next time I see you. ;)

Peace & love to you all, I'm out. CM

[Joe Killian]

Wow. That degenerated into a shouting match pretty quick, didn't it?

[Matt Hill Comer]

Yeah it did turn into a screaming match, Joe:

"Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Period. You should just accept civil benefits and be content, but I assume that is not possible for you."

By which he really meant: "I don't want you fags getting married because, well, I just don't want you to. Period. End of discussion, I'm in the majority, I help to make the decision, you don't. You should just accept your separate, but unequal civil unions and domestic partnerships and be content with what we, the majority, feel like giving you because we are in control and we get to decide how minorities live their lives and what rights and protections they do or do not get, but I guess being grateful for what we, the majority, are so graciously giving to you from the kindness of our hearts, even though we know it really isn't equal to what we have access to, isn't possible for you."

Maybe one day people like Jeffrey will wise up and think, "Oh... I get it now. I know why that boy wouldn't shut up... I was being an a-hole and a perpetuator of institutionalized, government-endorsed and sanctioned discrimination against law-abiding, community-involved, tax-paying American citizens who wanted nothing but the same rights I have! Wow... maybe I should call me Senator and see if we can't try to un-constitutionalize that blatant discrimination we wrote into it earlier in the century."

Can anyone tell I'm still kind of little upset (that's an understatement folks) with Jeffrey's little comment? Come on... I think more people than just me can admit that his comment was a little on the shitty, arrogant, I'm in the majority, we say what goes and you get to suffer side, right?

[Mr. Sun]

Matt - Putting aside the merits of any particular issue, you have got to keep an eye on the pace you are setting, Speed Racer! I am speaking as a father here. Cut up your outrage into smaller pieces and chew more slowly. I feel like Sootty, "Matt, she can't take this pace -- she's already at maximum capacity!" I'm going to throw out a word here which has helped me immensely in this area, and I don't want you to react immediately -- just give it a try: television. It's worked wonders for me. I no longer care about half the stuff I did. I'm glad we talked, son.

[Gate]

Sunny, we appreciate the reprieve you gave us on the shirts and will consider your request. Under no circumstances will we give up our french cuffs, however.

(BTW, your definition of soft porn is a rather broad one encompassing pictures that you would see in People at the checkout line at the Harris Teeter.)

We continue to beleive that the city should not be in the business of defining what constitutes a serious, committed relationship outside of marriage. Where would it draw the line on what qualifies and what does not. Better to leave it alone.

[Ed Cone]

I agree: the city should not be in the business of making such definitions. Instead, it should offer benefits to employees, gay and straight, who as free adults make such decisions for themselves.

[meblogin]

Perhaps there should be two forms of marriage...only one recognized in churches and a separate form of marriage recognized by government. Both would share equally with regard to legal/social rights but only one would be recognized by both church and state.

If we don't make the definitions....who?

[ben holder]

Now Butch and Mitch can get maried!

[Samuel Spagnola]

Sure is a lot of Anti-Judeo-Christian rhetoric on this topic. I wonder what Mel Gibson thinks...

SS

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Matt:

I don't make "little comments" or "shitty comments" I speak what I believe. I will never believe that homosexuality is something that should be acceptable in society.

Now Sean has a problem with the word "society", which is hard to understand from a self-defined "social activist".

Any person with any understanding knows that since the dawn of man humans have interacted within societies that define (among many other things) traditions, culture (art, aesthetics, beauty), limits of freedom (laws), definitions of success, and yes, morality.

I will meet you Matt anywhere, anytime, to debate the legitimacy of homosexuality in society. I will meet you on this blog, at your gay parties, on the radio, on tv, on Elm Street, at Sean's house, because, friend, we are in a culture war, and as long as I draw breath, I will be here to oppose your views.

Notice, I did not say anything derogatory or mentions the words Matt always defaults to in his "feel sorry for me" diatribes when he mentions all the abuses he has been subjected to.

I am not a person who goes out of his way to harass of down other people. I believe in helping others and giving of my self to make others better. And I am surely in no position to question the motivations or sanctity of others.

That being said, I firmly believe homosexuality is wrong and against the foundations of society. I reject all comparisons between homosexuals looking for acceptance for their distorted lifestyle and blacks seeking civil rights. Again, nothing is denied to a homosexual as an individual in this society.

You all can blog spit on me all you want with your two bit, one line comments. I know what I believe and I am never going to view homosexuality as a legitimate behavior that is to be acceptable in the society I live in, which is the society of the Piedmont in North Carolina in the United States of America, Sean.

[Ed Cone]

Jeff don't like the homosexuality.

Even so, the mayor of Greensboro, and the city staff, believe they can and should extend benefits to gay domestic partners of city workers.

Rather than yelling at Jeff, who is. not. budging., it might be more productive to voice approval of the city's plans, and to calmly engage those people who may question the plans from somewhat less hostile points of view.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Ed:

It is a complex issue and I failed to make clear in the post that I can understand a civil union and the state recognizing such and corporate entities extending insurance and retirement benefits to such partners.

I don't agree with it in a philosophical context, but as a realist I view it as a steady compromise.

Which is why I do not understand and will oppose the louder demand of Matt and others to obtain the status of marriage. I see that as a manifestation of a deeper current of forcing others to accept their lifestyle as legitimate in a philosophical context, which I stand opposed to without question.

It is complex, on many, many levels. Time may prove me wrong and show me to be just another ignorant person standing in the way of freedom and justice for all. But I believe some lines and boundaries serve a purpose and when we begin to redefine those boundaries, we cannot know what the logical conclusion will be.

[Ed Cone]

Thanks for sticking with the conversation, Jeff.

If I understand you correctly, you would not object to the city of Greensboro extending benefits to gay partners.

You do object, though, to the use of the term "marriage" for gay unions -- a concept that entered this thread through discussion of benefits for heterosexual couples who have the right to state-sanctioned marriage.

As I've written before, it seems we have things backwards in this country -- many people say they are OK with civil unions for gays, but not with gay marriage. Yet the way things stand now, gays can go to a church and be joined by clergy, but the state does not recognize civil unions. Odd.

[Samuel Spagnola]

"As I've written before, it seems we have things backwards in this country -- many people say they are OK with civil unions for gays, but not with gay marriage. Yet the way things stand now, gays can go to a church and be joined by clergy, but the state does not recognize civil unions. Odd."

Very keen observation, Ed. I'm not being sarcastic, either.

[Roch101]

"nothing is denied to a homosexual as an individual in this society." -- Jeff

"I ... will oppose the louder demand of Matt and others to obtain the status of marriage." -- Jeff

Oooops.

[Ed Cone]

An observation based on actual observation.

[gate]

Domestic Partner is not something the Council needs to concern itself with. It is near impossible to define and should be left alone.

[sean coon]

will the real jeffrey sykes stand up:

"You all can blog spit on me all you want with your two bit, one line comments. I know what I believe and I am never going to view homosexuality as a legitimate behavior that is to be acceptable in the society I live in, which is the society of the Piedmont in North Carolina in the United States of America, Sean."

or

"It is a complex issue and I failed to make clear in the post that I can understand a civil union and the state recognizing such and corporate entities extending insurance and retirement benefits to such partners. I don't agree with it in a philosophical context, but as a realist I view it as a steady compromise."

========

the only thing i care about is your second statement, jeff. we're in america, and civil rights should apply to *all* people. now if i were gay, i'd probably care a lot more about your first comment than i currently do. as it is, it doesn't affect me as much as it does a gay man like matt, so i don't... but that's not to say i don't feel empathy for his 24/7 plight of wading through intolerance.

if you're willing to concede on the civil rights issues, i can easily concede that you know homosexuality is wrong and not try to change your mind.

fair enough? or was that "blog spit?"

[Matt Hill Comer]

Gate said...
"Domestic Partner is not something the Council needs to concern itself with. It is near impossible to define and should be left alone."

Alright, well... since Greensboro is already the "San Francisco of North Carolina," maybe Mayor Holliday should become the Gavin Newsome mini-me and marry a bunch of gay couples at City Hall. Marriage... Spouse... those are easy to define.

[Gate]

Thought Asheville was the San Francisco of NC.

[Matt Hill Comer]

I think Asheville and Greensboro are fighting over the title, lol.

And... I was referring to a blogger who said that, I don't know if you all remember it, but here it is: http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?t=255