Domestic Partner Benefits For State Employees: Your Opinion?
[NOTE: This section of the blog is full. You can continue to review the comments made to date. However, to add your comments, please go to: "Domestic Partner Benefits For State Employees (Cont.)—January 17”]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Florida-Board of Trustees is being asked to approve extending health insurance coverage to domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees. The coverage would also be extended to unmarried, heterosexual couples.
No other public universities in Florida offer such benefits. UF officials say they must provide this benefit to be able to “compete on a national basis”. Needless to say, this proposed policy has created much controversial discussion.
It is still unclear whether or not any state funds (i.e., from us taxpayers) will be used to cover the annual cost ($500,000 to $1 million) of extending health care benefits. There is some speculation that the health benefits would be covered by money from the UF Foundation, Federal Grants, and discretionary funds. You can bet, sooner or later when the “outside sources” of money run out, the state is going to be asked to pick up the health coverage costs.
State Representative Larry Cretul, Ocala, expressed his concern about the extension of benefits to domestic partners in a pointed letter to the Board of Trustees. Rep. Cretul also expressed concern about the longer-range legal and financial precedent this has for our state. To address the situation, he will introduce a bill in this Legislative Session that basically “prohibits any taxpayer money being used for extending domestic-partner benefits to state employees”.
Our December question is focused on the above issue:
Should the state of Florida pay for benefit coverage for domestic partners of unmarried, gay or heterosexual employees? Why or why not?
Tell us what you think!
posted by Blog Master @ 12:07 AM
190 Comments:
Heterosexual couples have an option to get the UF health benefits, get married. Same sex couples will have the same option when voters elect to recognize homosexual marriage as a legal marriage. Until then, I'm against having the state pay for same sex medical coverage.
The argument that UF must offer domestic partner benefits to be competitive nationally is not supported by the data.
Of the Top 10 public universities, 5 offer domestic partner benefits. The only institution out of the 5 not in California is the University of Michigan. The other four public universities in the top 10 offering domestic partner benefits are University of California-Berkley, University of California-Los Angeles, University of California-San Diego, and the University of California-Irvine. I’m not sure that UF should be so heavily patterning what it does along the lines of California universities.
The five top public universities that don’t offer domestic partner benefits are University of Virginia, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, the College of William and Mary, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Georgia Institute of Technology. Note, four of these are very high quality southern schools
Only one university in the SEC provides this benefit, Vanderbilt University, and it is a private not public university.
If granting this benefit is so important to “quality” of a university, why isn’t our own Miami University (which provides the benefit) a higher quality university? I haven’t seen it on any version of a top 10 list!
Private universities lead the pack in offering this benefit over the public universities—probably as it should be.
One last factor, only 11 state governments of our 50 provide this benefit to their “state employees”. Should Florida do the same? I don’t think so.
Let the UF alumni and donors pay for this, but not the taxpayers! Wait until the grants, federal money and alumni negative reaction dry up the funds for this. Then the proverbial s… will hit the fan!
State employees should not receive domestic partner benefits. I don’t want my tax dollars used for this purpose and I tend to be a bit on the liberal side on social issues. As the comment above said, use the definition of “legally married” to provide health insurance.
Mr. Cretul is right in trying to stop the university liberals from extending this to other state workers. If the U of F can pay for health benefits with non-taxpayer funds, that’s fine with me. I agree though that this is probably not going to work in the future.
I can’t believe they are able to use Federal funds for this purpose. However, knowing what is happening in our Federal government, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
So now Cretul is joining the rest of the Republicans in bashing gays.
i heard that this was being done to attract better professors. does that mean a homosexual is a better professor than someone who is conservative? adding to the debate, shouldn’t the university provide a gun purchase allowance and nra membership to attract conservative professors?
A gun purchase allowance and NRA membership to attract conservative professors.....I love it!!
Makes about as much sense as medical insurance for same sex couples.
Here is what one of the professors at Alachua’s Santa Fe Community College thinks about this topic (comments taken from the Alachua political blog):
“I'm a faculty member at SFCC and have several gay friends with same sex partners. These partners have jobs and take care of there own health insurance. That's the responsible way to address the issue. I respect such self reliance.”
Sounds like a correct approach to me.
The groups pushing this same sex stuff will next want to change the school colors at Florida to "pink and lavender"! Maybe that’s appropriate based on this. How about that, some of you macho Gators?
An important update on this issue:
The University of Florida-Board of Trustees today APPROVED, by a 12-1 vote, extending health care insurance to unmarried, domestic partners of UF employees.
This is a real bummer!!!
Hope no state money is used for this.
Well, the Peter Principle is in full operation. Larry Cretul, who never graduated from college, is telling the Board of Trustees of the flagship public university in Florida how to run the place.
Government should follow the best practices of the private sector, so the decision by the University of Florida to offer domestic partner benefits is a good one. I’m glad to see that UF has the brains to follow the lead of widely admired private sector successes like General Electric.
This isn’t “university liberals” pushing an agenda on the rest of the world. This is a public university learning from corporate America. According to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 247 of the Fortune 500, including 37 of the Fortune 50, offer domestic partner benefits. Just 14 years ago, no publicly traded company in the United States offered such benefits. Surveys show increasing tolerance of gays and lesbians with decreasing age, which is why this trend will continue as companies increasingly market to, and recruit from, cohorts that are more tolerant. And let’s not forget that UF has to compete for talent with many of these private companies in addition to competing with other colleges and universities.
The idea that you can economically isolate yourself from the provision of domestic partner benefits by denying them to public employees is laughable. Everyone on this blog is funding these benefits as a consumer. You would pretty much have to move into a remote cave to economically boycott all the companies offering domestic partner benefits.
Stan, you’re certainly not the first Yankee to move to Florida to tell us how to do everything down here, but you seem to be out of step with your native Ohio where Procter & Gamble, the company at which you worked much of your life and made your millions, is based. Procter & Gamble isn’t just offering domestic partner benefits; according to one website I looked at today, they are the 14th best company in the U.S. for gay and lesbian employees. James Dobson and the American Family Association attacked P&G last year when they supported repeal of an anti-gay ordinance in Cincinnati that they said hurt recruitment of employees.
And what about Ohio State, which also offers these benefits as does the City of Columbus. Do you have anything to back up your forecast of a backlash from UF donors or is this just dreaming on your part?
Stan, you cite Georgia Tech as an example of a highly ranked public university not offering domestic partner benefits. I know a little about Tech, having earned two degrees there and lived in Atlanta where Tech is located for a number of additional years.
The people running Tech understand they need to offer these domestic partner benefits to remain competitive. A report in a Tech publication, The Whistle, in 2002 quoted the VP of Human Resources saying: “In today’s world, we’re recruiting faculty and staff both nationally and internationally. What we have found is that these benefits are not unusual in other places. So offering domestic partner benefits is really a matter of practicality and competitiveness.” According to the article, Tech offers limited domestic partner benefits. I’m sure they would offer more if the backward state government in Georgia would let them.
We’ll continue to see the sort of political grandstanding Cretul is doing along with outbursts of frustration by reactionary voters, but a wave of social awareness and economic rationality is washing over the land. The private sector is leading; the government sector will follow.
The Southern Baptist Convention even ended its eight-year long boycott of Disney this past summer even though Disney still offers domestic partner benefits. Guess the boycott didn’t work. Larry Cretul and Dennis Baxley can buy Disney merchandise now without breaking their church’s boycott. I suggest some Mickey Mouse ears to go with their Mickey Mouse intellects.
Thank you Brian for your usual reaction to anything someone suggests that doesn’t agree with your perception of today’s “life style” and definition of what is progressive. You really don’t know me well enough to use my employment at P&G as what I base my personal values on. I don’t use P&G for that purpose and never have.
I disagree with your assessment of the UF situation on this issue. I have as much right to speak out on not spending tax dollars on the type of benefit UF is providing as you do to speak in favor of it. It is really academic at this point; UF is doing this without spending taxpayer money—so I’m satisfied. However, I am sure this issue is not yet totally resolved. So don’t gloat too much on your assessment of how “progressive” UF is by extending the health care benefits to unmarried, heterosexual and same-sex partners.
I’m disappointed, but not surprised, that you discredit Larry Cretul because he is not a college graduate; this is typical of educational elitists like you. I know Larry very well, and I somewhat know you. Both of you are very smart individuals, but in very different ways. Having a degree does not make a person “smart” or successful. If that was the case, you would be doing much better in your life than you are currently doing. So keep on knocking Larry if you want. We will see who will make the better contribution to our county and state over the long haul—Larry or you. There is no doubt in my mind which of you already has and will in the future.
Larry is a very good and trusted friend, and the fact you seem to want to discredit him is of little significance to me. Friendships run deep with me. It is unfortunate you personally don’t have more of them; you would probably have a much more fulfilling life.
There are issues you and I agree on, and there are those we do not. This is one we do not agree on. So let’s just leave it that way.
I was never a big fan of Larry Cretul’s when he was a Commissioner. However, I’m with him 100% on his bill.
Brian Creekbaum is correct that the public sector should be following the private sector on adopting some of its better ideas. I just strongly disagree with him that giving benefits to unmarried, homo and heterosexual couples is one of them
Now, I’m going fishin!
My, such a narrow line between political satire and personal insults; the line that is typically crossed by those without the intellectual ammunition to back up insulting statements. It is so obvious that this blog is created by the narrow minded individuals who contribute insults in response to facts and opinion. No wonder more people don't even bother reading this twaddle.
I was really surprised to learn from Mr. Creekbaum that he had two degrees from Georgia Tech. Isn’t this the same man who incorrectly completed the library book challenge request form?
To the 7:29 AM comment just above mine:
I notice that you are one of those intellectuals who read this "twaddle". You responded didn't you?
Too bad the liberal point of view has to always be correct.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Removed a duplicate posting by a blogger.
creekbaum may be very educated, but for years randy harris has been toying with him like a cat playing with a nearly dead mouse.
I notice a blogger mentioned Larry Cretul as a gay basher. Nothing could be further from the truth. His position is one of disagreement with the UF policy, applying to heterosexual and same sex couples receiving employee benefits, that redefines “legal marriage”.
There is also an implication that his position is partisan in nature. Again, not true. Who do you think has asked Cretul to be a co-sponsor of his bill? Call and ask him. Interestingly, Democrats want to sign on with him. So, you should not infer the UF policy is “only an issue with Republicans”.
And that’s the trouble with Cretul. He’s a politician with "positions" rather than convictions. He can’t stand up for what he believes because he doesn’t believe in anything.
I’m sure Cretul’s bill will pass overwhelmingly with the support of many Democrats. I’m sure Cretul is too; otherwise he wouldn’t be offering it. It’s not like the guy has any guts and takes risky positions. If he did have guts, he would offer and seriously lobby for a bill cutting all vendor relationships between the State of Florida and companies that provide domestic partner benefits, which would have enormous ramifications and which would be a real show of moral conviction by making sure our tax money doesn’t fund such benefits. He won’t do that because that would require real conviction he lacks and pit him against major US corporations from which he wants money when he runs for Congress. It’s much easier to get in the newspaper by grinding your heal into a hundred or so people at UF.
It’s a sad fact that many politicians will support legislation they know is bad. I ran into this in 2002 when Baxley sponsored a library internet filtering unfunded state mandate that Cretul co-sponsored. Amusingly, Cretul had just campaigned saying he was sensitive to unfunded state mandates because he had been a Marion County commissioner. Didn’t take him long to forget about that “position” but I guess the temptation to demagogue on children and pornography was just too great.
Of course, a vote on the bill was not a vote on whether to give children pornography; it was a vote on whether the state or local government should be running local public libraries. Baxley and Cretul were in favor of Tallahassee politicians giving orders to our county commission. A library director in another county told me a member of her state legislative delegation told her he knew it was a bad bill but he would “have” to vote for it. Why? Because these people know that somebody like Baxley or Cretul will run a last minute ad in an election totally distorting the vote.
Does anyone seriously think that a political ad on this domestic partner benefits thing will in any way seriously discuss the implications for the caliber of teaching at UF. Of course not. It will be run 72 hours before an election. It will use charged phrases like “university liberals” and it will make the target out to be the biggest homo symp in the history of mankind. It will probably be accompanied by a photo of the legislator in some odd pose on the floor of the legislature to make him look effeminate to suggest to the voter that the target may be homosexual even though he actually has a wife and children and grandchildren. The people running the ad will sit around laughing about it while they plan it because they know it’s bull, but they will run it because they want to win at any cost. Candidates and professional consultants who have no shame in manipulating voters have debased the whole process.
So Mr. Creekbaum you are very likely correct. But how do we change all of what you are describing? My Democratic Party does not seem to be the answer...especially locally. I haven't even seen, other than me and couple of other people, anyone who will come on this blog and admit to being a Democrat. I may even switch to Republican...at least they fight.
Politically homeless, my foot. Whichever "anonymous" blogmaster creating this is a typical Marion County Republican homophobe. Let me guess: White, male, evangelical Christian, right-wing Baxley/Cretul supporter, politically underhanded, wanabe "important" by giving a forum for THIS? How surprising.
The person providing the comments above doesn’t know what they are talking about. If you want to use profiling, like they did, ignorant would be the description.
I have been providing comments every now and then since this blog started six months ago. All you need to do is look at the sections dealing with evaluating the performance of our county commissioners and school board and it is pretty obvious there are many anti-Republican comments. Randy Harris and other commissioners are criticized unmercifully.
Additionally, I have seen many, many comments berating Baxley and some on Cretul. I would say this blog is much more to the liberal/moderate side than it is to the “right”. People spend unbelievable amounts of time on issues like the library, abortion, evolution, etc. tearing apart the Republican positions on these issues.
This section on the UF gay benefits issue is the first one where most all bloggers seem to be presenting a similar response. As I have said in many other comments on the blog, we need more discussion on hard issues like taxes, the budget, and fiscal issues. I intend to keep on pushing these. I am a Republican and I sure don’t feel like this is any right wing blog. Do what I ask, read this blog beyond just the current section of comments.
back off the personal attacks. first cretul, then the blogmaster, then all bloggers. debate the issue.
I don’t feel the Blog tilts right or left. We have heard from social conservatives like Bobby D, and those on the other side like Brian Creekbaum a supporter of gay rights. There have been arguments on both sides of many topics.
The problem with this recent discussion on University benefits is there are not many people who will come forward in Marion County to speak out and support the gay and lesbian cause. Could it be there are just not many who support it at all?
Let’s put gay rights aside and consider how difficult it already is to find sufficient research grants. How will a lot of UF professors and graduate students, who do research, feel when they see that Federal funds that could have been used for productive research are now being used for domestic partner benefits? Wouldn’t that hard-to-come-by research money be better used for work devoted to curing/preventing aids, as an example?
One problem with this line of thought is that it takes a static view of the amount of research dollars available. A benefit plan that helps attract more qualified people may well attract more research dollars than would have otherwise been attracted.
You could also argue that if the university stopped offering spousal health insurance benefits to married people that would free up money to fight Aids. Do you want to do that? Not if the you want the university to remain competitive in the labor market you don't.
If the people you name are concerned about this, I think their most likely response will be to look for ways to unseat Larry Cretul, which I understand is a hot topic around Gainesville right now.
One of the bloggers suggests the state cut vendor relationships with those who provide benefits to unmarried domestic partners. Sound like a great idea to me!
Al, I'm glad you latched on to the idea. Please consider sharing your support with a broader, larger audience, perhaps through a letter to the Star-Banner. This should be the standard against which Rep. Cretul is measured on this issue. If he doesn't follow-through on what you want, then obviously he is just grandstanding and not serious about protecting marriage from gays. James Dobson wanted to boycott Procter & Gamble; why wouldn't Rep. Cretul do the same with our tax money? He isn't in favor of anal intercourse between men, is he?
Good luck lobbying Rep. Cretul on this issue! It will be interesting to see how he performs for you, and I'm sure you and others will let him know how you feel in the next election if he keeps giving all this state business to gay-friendly companies.
I don't care if he is personally succesful or not on the state vendor issue. The fact he sees the UF policy as wrong and is fighting it, is what I'm interested in. He has my vote and that of many others.
So you're not actually interested in having any real impact. You just want to feel like you did.
I think a fair reading of my comments above would be I think there is a social inevitability to gays and lesbians getting better treatment in general and that domestic partner benefits are becoming commonplace and a competitive necessity for a business or university that wants to recruit the best talent.
Does that mean I support “gay rights?” Well, gays are human beings so I guess they have some rights, but my support for the domestic partner benefit is based on what is in the interest of UF voluntarily offering in order to remain competitive, not on a “gay right.“
Frankly, I don’t see why a single person doing the same work for an employer as a married person shouldn’t be allowed a second covered person under the employer’s health plan no matter who they select even if they want to randomly pick the second person out of the phone book. Why should they even have to claim a domestic partnership with the second person? They’re providing the same economic value to the employer as the married person. Why shouldn’t they be paid the same benefit, and why shouldn’t it be their own business who they want to spend the benefit on just as it’s their own business who they spend their cash compensation on?
I’m asked above about a cure for the distortions of the campaign process and local Democratic Party weakness. Solving that is above my pay grade. I’d like to see it solved locally, even though I’m affiliated with no political party, because I see the current de facto one party system in Marion County as unhealthy. Even Harris supporter John Lund has publicly said he would like to see more competition from Democrats because Republican officeholders are complacent. I agree.
Under this one party system, candidates play to extremists who come out heavy in Republican primaries because they know the general election will be a cakewalk. It gives these extremists disproportionate influence on the government. Look at the county commission – five middle-aged Republican white guys, a description that applies to 6 percent of registered voters and between 4 and 5 percent of the adult population of the county (that’s based on middle aged being the age range on the Commission). They don’t represent the county. They are the output of a dysfunctional system that leaves a very substantial number of people in Marion County unrepresented. If Democrats asked me for advice I would tell them to quit whining, grow spines, get some organization, and put their money where their mouths are located (which I have done a couple of times in a significant way).
Someone else asks about why gays don’t speak up in Marion County. I have never talked to anyone who is gay about their being gay, but I do have two women on my library-related e-mail list who say they have sons who are gay. After one of the county commission library workshops last year in which Harris went on one of his anti-gay tirades, one of the mothers told me this was the sort of thing that made her son afraid. They don’t speak up because they are afraid of economic boycott of their businesses, and they are afraid of physical violence, but they are here in places that would surprise many people in Marion County – maybe even in the Republican Party and holding elective office. Think about it.
The blog is skewed toward Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. This is because the blogmaster is a Republican who seeded the blog from his contacts which are skewed in this way.
Mr. Creekbaum, I agree with most of your points. We do need more two-party competition. I have also heard this from Republicans. I'm not optimistic we will see it at the local level--perhaps state and national will have to lead the way.
I have only one area I don't agree with you and that relates to the Florida University situation. I respectfully don't agree with your logic on why the state should pay for benefits for unmarried,same sex couples. If the state law recognized same sex marriages, I would support what UF is doing.
I guess I'm just old fashioned about marriage. Maybe that's a part of my frustration with the liberal wing of the Democrats that is making a sham of politics the same way the far right is with the Republicans.
I see it as about excellence in education and research, not the definition of marriage. I don’t view what UF is doing as recognition of same-sex marriage.
Here are the ten largest corporations offering domestic partner health insurance benefits: General Motors, Ford, General Electric, Chevron, Citigroup, AIG, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, and Verizon.
I think you would have a great deal of difficulty convincing actual “liberals” that these organizations are “liberal.”
How about News Corp, which broadcasts Fox News and which offers domestic partner benefits? A creature of the Far Left of the Democratic Party? Come on, now. Rupert Murdoch runs a “liberal” company? Get real.
And how many of you bloggers are out this week supporting the domestic partner benefits at Hallmark with your greeting card purchases? Ho, ho, ho!
Femdem, how do you feel about UF hiring gays and about gays in the military?
I agree that the Homeless blog has Republican tendencies. However, I most certainly would not call them far right, as one blogger did. There was an attempt a month or so ago by some of the far right (Bobby D and friends) to capitalize on the blog for their purposes. That didn’t last very long thanks to Radioman, PWF, and several others. I think the far right just couldn’t get anyone convinced that uses this blog to accept their “ideas”. They have not been back on since. I think the same thing would probably happen if some of the leftists in my own Democratic Party tried to dominate the blog with their ideas.
I had thought about starting a blog like this over a year ago. Discussed it with several people, many Dems like me, and concluded it was a waste of my time. Most everyone told me it would just be too controversial and that the far right would sabotage it. Probably so. I am not uncomfortable with putting my thoughts out on the Homeless blog. There are some heated disagreements from time to time. But I have no problem with that. The blog is fun and informative—sure beats the Star Banner letters to the editor.
Also, I don’t know who started this blog, what their Party is, etc. It doesn’t matter. My experience is that blogs can take on a life of their own and the “blogmaster” is just in a coordinating way incidental to the blog’s operation. Frankly, I give whoever started the blog credit for having the guts to put controversial topics out there for us. One rumor I heard is that there are four people involved (probably all Republicans) and one of them works in an influential job at the Star Banner. My point, who cares.
The problem is that people here in Marion County just don’t participate in political discussion very well. I moved here from Michigan several years ago, and I tell you this county is “different” on a political issues basis!
Sorry, I used so much space. But needed to get this off my chest.
Brian, good point about gay local elected republicans. I did vote for one. However, I would not want any of my taxpayer money used to pay for the live in partner’s health insurance.
The State should not pay for domestic partner benefits for State employees. There is an option, get married.
I noticed someone criticizing Larry Cretul for his lack of a university education. Having served with him in government, I can tell you he is no dummy. Larry has always taken a low key approach to problems. More than he is given credit for, he goes into great detail learning about an issue before deciding what to do about it. I’m sure the University of Florida benefits issue has been thoroughly studied by him. Are there politics involved, you bet there are!
One thing Larry is really good at that is ignored by less successful politicians is to surround himself with very intelligent and politically astute advisors. I know some of them. They work from data and facts about public perceptions on issues. Call him uneducated if you want. However, my bet is on Larry to continue to rise on the political battleground.
I have no problem with homosexuals in the military or having employment rights at UF. I’m a teacher and I am OK with them teaching. There are certain laws on these situations, don’t know of any law saying you must do what UF is doing on health care insurance.
I also have no problem with homosexuals being married. However, we haven’t the laws in Florida (yet) to give marriage rights to homosexuals. Heterosexuals do have the right to marriage.
Don’t try to confuse the issue by comparing employment and military service situations with “legal rights” extended by the marriage contract. They are different and no way will anyone convince me otherwise. You can keep trying but you won’t change my mind.
Yo, dj, seems a stretch to think you knowingly voted for a gay politician (with benefits). Given the demographics of Marion County officials, Harris would have to know and he would never condone it. I don't remember reading about it in any of the campaign literature! Also,the anonymous homophobe needs to check the Medicaid recipient figures. Might surprise you. And femdem, what's up with the marriage fixation? An attractive employee benefit is just that: a tool to attract qualified applicants. Seems if you support gay teachers, (and politicians?) affording them benefits may be a secondary consideration?
Ah, a little humor on the blog!
You know that Harris could care less about who the Republican gays are. He is only interested in making sure that his Party squashes the Democrats every election. He is doing that very well and I don’t see that changing. Bet he even uses the paying for domestic partner benefits issue as a show of fiscal responsibility and will use it in his own campaign. I think domestic partner benefits are a tough issue to sell in Marion County and many other places in Florida.
Yo, “homo savior”, your thinking is a good example of why the blacks and certain other members of the Democratic Party are a big problem for the Democrats and a great opportunity for the Republicans. You have totally missed the point. Many of us, including many, many blacks, believe in marriage as much as you believe in homosexuality and domestic partners; there are many blacks who are also against homosexuality. The issue, “homo savior”, is legal marriage.
Why don’t you get out there and fight the battle for something really important, like the legal right for anyone to marry anyone. Now that is a cause...much more important than just supporting benefits for 100 or so University gays. You won’t. You are the typical liberal minded person: talk (write) a good game, but never win one!
WRONG!!!
here are a couple of interesting developments:
1. proctor and gamble was mentioned as an example of a top company offering domestic partner benefits. this year they dropped from a rank of #4 to #13 on the list of high reputation companies in the u.s. there could have been many reasons for the decline. however, there are likely many factors more important than offering domestic partner benefits that define greatness in any organization…including the university of florida.
2. ford motor has cancelled advertising in gay magazines. the ford board was under pressure by american family association (afa) and gave in.
it looks like activist groups like american family association are going to continue efforts to counter all of the gay alliance groups. afa will win some and lose some, but boards are not ignoring them.
Anonymous asked, "what’s up with the marriage fixation?"
This is very likely a question from a never married person or one who is not into heterosexual relationships.
I will only respond by saying that I’m happily, lovingly and “legally” married and value the nature of the relationship.
Let's not forget why they offer benefits to married couples in the first place--because our society recognizes the unique importance and role of marriage. This issue is basically about whether we will continue to do that. My hat's off to Larry Cretul for taking a stand on the side of preserving the distinct importance of marriage.
Hey, Dave!
Your friends who rumor that someone from the Star Banner is involved with the blog must be smoking something. If they think there are four Republicans involved and one of them is an influential Star Banner person, this won’t add up. I doubt there are any Republicans in influential positions at the Banner. Better find out what they are smoking and stay away, the secondary smoke may cloud your thinking too!
No influential Republicans at the Star-Banner? Sure there are. You can start at the top with publisher Bruce Gaultney, who was a registered Republican when I last checked and who is a religious man who is an elder in the Christian church he attends. He runs the business and is one of only three persons on their editorial board.
Bill Thompson, who became their assistant editorial page editor about a year ago after covering the county beat as a reporter, is also a Republican. Last year, I was present when Editorial Page Editor Brad Rogers proclaimed that Thompson’s move represented the ascension of another Marion County conservative. I didn’t hear Republican School Board Member Kurt Kelly, who was present, arguing with Rogers. So, two-thirds of their editorial board is Republican.
Commissioner Randy Harris, the darling of reactionary elements in Marion County who call themselves conservative Republicans, has often publicly praised the fairness of the Star-Banner’s news coverage of county government. If you think their editorials are so liberal, then please post to the blog a citation for their most recent pro-choice editorial. Good luck in your search! You’re going to need a lot of it. I will say that I believe their letters page is skewed toward Democratic writers, but the don't control who writes to the paper.
As for the identity of the blogmaster(s), I’ve already told you a Republican is running this show. A few weeks back, I was over at the Banner talking to two editors on another matter, and we were all laughing about his transparent efforts to fool us into believing he isn’t running this thing.
I’m enjoying playing his game here for awhile, but, you know, even in the Wizard of Oz, eventually the curtain was pulled back and everyone saw the man running the show.
I stand corrected.
Glad to know we also have some RINO's over at the Star Banner. This community is full of them. Including many on the blog, and the Blogmaster, if he/she really is a Republican.
well, maybe it is time for me to come back. let's see, bobby is now doing his stitck on something, pat the trouble maker is gone, and her colleague in verbal battles, brian, is still here, misrepresenting positionss and attacking one of the best legislators we have had in recent years, larry cretul.
notice how quiet it has been since she left, and brian had to work to find something to create an issue --this one, like most of his, without substance or merit.
so, guess maybe it is time for me to take on this brian guy and see how accurate he really is. from where i sit, doesn't look to me like his two degrees taught him anything about how to get things accomplished or in getting along with people. his comments about cretul aren't just a distortion, they are false. and if we are to follow business, brian, we would eliminate all benefits like health insurance and pensions. that, like it or not, is the wave of the future, and the only place where it has not happened is in government and education. and it will come there too. florida is wrong in what they have done. but more later.
Brian, you really need to get a life. You don't know Cretul at all. Anyone who says he follows polls or does anything OTHER than his convictions really does not know him. And to criticize a man who has developed through the University of Learning -- making a living at a for profit business, paying a payroll, and employing people, and who gave up $65,000+ to take a job paying $25,000+ only because he wanted to make a difference in the next level of govt, shows how shallow you are.
No he doesn't have a degree. Yes, his syntax is off at times. But he deals from principles more than any commissioner or legislator in this area.
He is not a homosexual basher (there is nothing "gay" about it). He recognizes that we are working to reduce aids by encouraging young women to keep their legs closed and practice abstinence, encouraging young men to practice abstinence, to get homosexuals to understand they are killing themselves, and then you want to provide them a special benefit??? Why don't we provide "same family" benefits to our grandparents.
Stick with taking on Harris. He is more your style. It will take a long time to get you up to Cretul's standards and principles.
And your antics don't bother him any more than they bother Larry Cretul
I just noticed that someone had tried to hack into the blog controls. Could be they are overly curious to find out who is running this blog. Unbelievable, if that is the case!
Welcome back Radioman. The guy knocking Larry Cretul is about as far off base as they come on the issue. He should move to California.
This conversation is so sick you could all be deemed handicapped.
Since Jim gave you a blogger handle, I will use it too.
Homo Savior, I would not vote for the same gay guy again. He has really let me down. Won’t get my vote. Will vote for the best candidate to replace him, even if it is a gay or lesbian. I’m a don’t ask, don’t tell kind of guy!
Censoring comments won't stop opionion, oh Wizard. The smoke and mirrors don't hide your identity or purpose. Excuse me while I go throw up.
Forgot to mention to the blogger above my comment. If this blog makes you sick, you have the option to not visit it or give comments. It's probably just "too common" for you...many folks here are likely not the far left intellectual that you and other Creekbaum "supporters" seem to be. Handicapped, I doubt. How about you?
I agree with Brian Creekbaum, Larry Cretul is a homophobe! He needs to be voted out of office.
There is nothing wrong with being a homosexual. UF should pay benefits to the partners of any of us who are UF employees and gay.
Glad Mr. Creekbaum is supporting us.
Welcome back Radioman.
I doubt Creekbaum will stay on the blog much longer.So you may have some short discussions. He is just like Bobby D, when he sees he's not gaining any support for a lost cause, he "disappears". Frankly, Bobby D has much more support for his various causes than does Creekbaum
OK folks, let’s get back to some facts:
Over the past two years UF has lost just two out of 4000 faculty (one per year, which represents .025% annual turnover) because it did not offer health benefits for unmarried, gay and heterosexual partners. Of the two who left, neither said health benefits was solely the reason for leaving. This is according to President, Bernie Machen.
It would be interesting to know how many professors left because of inadequate teaching facilities, low salaries, classes too large, housing problems, too liberal an environment in Gainesville, inadequate schools for children, inadequate benefits for “married faculty”, etc. Now these are some reasons that more meaningfully impact the quality of education provided at UF.
I worked as an executive in the private sector for over 30 years. I have yet to see where 1-2 professional people, even key executives, leaving a company caused a significant change in that company’s performance over time. It is ridiculous to conclude that the annual loss of even 2-3 professors out of 4000 because they did not receive domestic partner benefits is going to make a difference in UF’s academic ranking.
Someone in UF administration has sold the Board of Trustees a bogus reason for approving the domestic partner policy.
Domestic partner benefits a big problem? You have to be joking!
Ok, Brian, I have now read the entire blog, including the part you claim I wrote.
First, no where do I see anything that any reasonable person would intrepret to be "threatening" toward you.
Second, your facts about the U of F situation, as I understand it, are not as accurate as you believe. As far as I have been able to read, there has been NO intellectual drain in Gainesville due to the lack, until now, of domestic partnership benefits.
Third, while I decline to get into a spitting match with you or anyone over this issue (I have other issues I choose to work on) I do believe that society is going down hill with such benefits. As I told you in our telephone conversation, we work hard to keep all Americans healthy (some of us work harder than I do perhaps) and the provision of same sex benefits does not further our efforts for good health. Certainly, providing these benefits for adults sends a very bad message to children.
I watched a program the other evening showing that (as I recall) 70 percent of the population of an African nation has aids. They didn't get that massive disease from normal hetrosexual sex.
In your diatribe about my friend Larry Cretul, the bulk of which is a misrepresentation of his positions and of his standards, you criticized him for a bill apparently introduced by Baxley to require filters on library computers to prevent pronography from getting to the children who patronize the library -- something probably 95% of the people with children support.
You claimed that "a vote on the bill was not a vote on whether to give children pornography; it was a vote on whether the state or local government should be running local public libraries."
Brian, for God's sake, who should be running "public" libraries? If taxpayers put up the money, taxpayers have a right to "run" the libraries. There is a difference in my understanding of censorship and your view that any objection by the people we elect is an effort to censor.
Anyway, sorry to disappoint you, but I do not read the blog all day long. In fact, I think this is the first time since last Monday that I have even had time to look at it. You'll have to find someone else to blame for any comments you intrepret as threatening. I sign my name when I write.
Someone else will have to tackle debating with you on the points you have raised; I just don't have the time.
And I still fail to see any threats to or about you. Guess it is all in the way we read things.
--pwf
U of F sounds a lot like our library situation of a year or so ago. A lot of emotion and wasted time over two or three books. Now, the same over two or three gay professors leaving U of F. The library didn’t need new policies and U of F doesn’t need a gay benefits policy.
I agree with Linda. To answer the question: I don't think the State should pay for these kinds of benfits.
WHAT CENSORING?
At 9:30 p.m., 12/8/05 Anonymous blogger commented on this particular thread as follows:
“Censoring comments won’t stop opionions (sic), oh Wizard.”
We are sure that “Wizard” applies to the Blog Master, because we have seen a blogger use that term. We challenge the individual posting this comment to provide examples (e.g., something you submitted that was deleted) of anything that has been “censored” on our blog. Any comments deleted from the blog are noted on the thread. There has been one delete on this thread (a duplicate comment).
We remove comments in two situations: Splogs (i.e., blog spam) and duplicate (same) comments entered by mistake. Comments are made on this blog that we may not agree with, but we are not going to censor them.
Please give us examples!
Am trying to understand exactly how offering benifits to Gays/Lesbians and other couples who are "NOT" married gives a university or business an edge over the competition??Brian please explain this-I am all ears!!
If we had some really "smart" and "effective" professors who happened to be into beastiality,should we then offer their animals benifits??
Marriage is a sacred institution..Not all hetero/homo/anysexulaity types are gonna get married..So be it!!Not all heterosexual married couples will be able to have children-so should we then give benifits to their pets or distant relatives just so they can get something equal to the couples who get benifits for their kids; provided by an employer??
What the blazes is going on here??
I dont really care what adults decide to do in their bedrooms,but for crying out loud why in the world should we try and pretend this is equal to a marriage between a man and a woman??
Has our society gone mad??
You won't hear from Creekbaum. It got to hot in the kitchen for him and he has no one to fight his fight for him. Typical intellectual liberal, stir up the pot but get out when things aren't going his way.
Yo, pwf, data from the World Health Organization: "In contrast to North American and European AIDS patients, African AIDS patients rarely reaport a history of homosexual activity or intravenous drug abuse. Available data suggest that hetersexual activity, blood transfusions, vertical transmission from mother to infant, and probable frequent exposure to unsterilized needles account for the spread of HIV infection and AIDS in Africa." You might be a racist homophobe but you should keep your facts straight.
Yo linda, I'm glad you agree with Brian in that no new library policies were needed. He and many other worked diligently for many years to keep the public library safe from the county commission; but alas, the commissioners insisted on taking charge, abolishing the library board, and writing new policies and procedures when, clearly, that was unnecessary when what was needed was the hot topic of dirty books to manufacture campaign rhetoric. Maybe you suffered amnesia over the issue? Stan and Paul speak of "Creekbaum supporters" as though he were running for something. Every fact he presents or opinion he offers receives bashing from the "blogmasters" and their pseudonyms. Note that meanwhile truly outrageous entries receive no response from the multiple personalities of the Wizard of Oz. Hmmmm
Yo Brian, saw your comments above!
Some right and some wrong in both of them. Of course, that's the story of your life: never right and never wrong.
This whole thing about supporters is ridiculous. How can you have supporters, once they get to know you, they jump ship.
Mr. Creekbaum:
I just love this blog!
You are becoming a good replacement for Bobby D. Remember how much fun that was. Keep on blogging, some of your comments are great (those I can understand).
However, most of us aren't nearly as smart as you. So would you please try to write to our level. I hate to keep using the dictionary to understand what you are saying. Even though it does sound impressive.
Bobby D wasn't as impressive a writer as you. But I did always understand what he was saying. Perhaps you could call Bobby on Monday and see if he could assist you with a writing style more appropriate to the readers of this blog. Most of us are not in your intellectual league, whatever it is.
I have been very surprised to see a past friend of mine, Brian Creekbaum, adding comments to the blog. He had always given me the sage advice to not waste time on certain local media. In particular, talk radio and the Star Banner. He told me very few thinking people pay any attention to these sources.
The Homeless blog is an upstart media source with only about six months of life, has kind of a restricted-target viewership and probably not much impact (yet) on politics. That’s why I can’t imagine Brian wasting his time contributing to such a low-influence media source; probably comparable to the impact he feels local talk radio has.
Additionally, he seems very preoccupied with my friend PWF and me and our contributions to the blog. Why? Speaking for myself, I’m just an old, retired executive who “immigrated” from up north to Ocala. I’m just trying to add any contribution I can to make Marion County a better place. I bet if you ask the average citizen who I am, 99.9% would tell you they don’t know. So why the effort to "expose" and tear apart such an uninfluential person like me? I imagine PWF feels much the same, but I won’t try to speak for him.
Stan, "not influential". Give me a break!!!
My answer is easy, NO!
Get married and get the benefit.
I haven't yet seen any examples of censoring given by the blogger who made this accusation. Perhaps there are none.
Isn't it funny how free speech is defined by different people. To some on this blog it seems to mean don't disagree with me.
Please Mr. Creekbaum write letters to the Ocala and Gainsville newpapers giving your total support of what UF is doing on domestic benefits! Also, please blast Larry Cretul for his disagreement with the policy and his lack of a university degree. It will benefit our cause very much. Whose cause is the only question you will need to answer.
I just heard about your blog from a friend in Ocala. I like it. I see you folks are having a discussion like we have had in the past about a similar political blog in Alachua County. Here is how I believe most people using the Alachua blog feel about anonymous comments (from a comment posted there)—PJ is Political Junkie, the blog owner:
“If PJ didn't want it anonymous, he wouldn't have set it up that way. Personally, I'm not interested in WHO says what, I'm interested in WHAT they have to say. Often, people are (so) blinded by their feelings for a person (or that person's perceived/known political leanings), that they can't hear what they're saying. I like it anonymous much better. You can only agree or disagree with WHAT is said, not WHO is saying it, as people too often do.”
If you don’t like what people are saying, then turn off the sound. That’s what people up here do and our blog is not nearly as civil as yours.
Ditto from me!
AMEN, Pastortim!
The comments cut both ways. I am not an extremely religious person, but isn't there something in the bible about "he who casts the first stone"?
I put the UF issue aside to get to the real problem here - Access to Health Care... to maintain a healthy economy (jobs) in a free society.
The issue of health care is very important in maintaining a successful society and robust economy. Even the wealthy among us will benefit when the poorest are free from communicable diseases.
Homeless cooks at restaurants that are frequented by citizens of means can carry hepatitis, salmonella and other diseaes without discrimination to size of a bank accounts or inherited gender. And too few employers require new hires to show proof of "freedom from disease" before they start cooking and handling food.
I am politically homeless but firmly believe that businesses and universities could be far more productive without being economically and politically dragged down with the cost of providing and administering health care to a employees.
Let's face it -- competing economically in a global society will always be a hardship with the current employer-based health care system. Many countries that export to us have a National Health plan...including Israel - a Country that receives billions of your tax dollars every year.
We need to get the cost of healthcare off the backs of businesses, including Universities.
Some of the benefits of a national health plan:
(1) Slows down of out-sourcing of American jobs to foreign countries by leveling the field on employer benefits. Also reduces the cost of production to lower our cost of exports.
(2) Removes the gay issue from contentious, devisive, energy wasting public debate.
(3) Reduces infant mortality and the poor "choice" of abortion due to poverty and lack of access to health care.
(4) Enhance effectiveness of Homeland Security in a terrorist event when a system of public is in place before the event instead of thrown together afterward. A national health plan can be in addition to the current fee for service medicine.
How does America implement a sweeping health care reform?
No sweeping reform is needed. Simply reduce the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 all the way down to include pre-natal health to the fetus and mother.
A National Health plan is good for the economy, good for eliminating abortions and good for overall family values.
God Bless Americans
HWS
hsave thanks for getting us back into problem solving instead of those ignorant personal attacks.
God bless you too.
hsaive,
Good thoughts. You are correct, the whole discussion about domestic partner benefits wouldn’t be on the blog if we had National Health Insurance. I have visited friends overseas who live under a national system. They have no problems with it. The problem in the U.S. is to get a two-party effort going on the issue and to counter the many special interest groups who come out in force every time the subject is mentioned (e.g., physicians, health insurance companies, etc.). With our health care costs going in the direction they are, it won’t be long until it replaces Social Security and tax reform as a priority. It takes a crisis to cause change—and that’s what will happen.
Political parties are impotent to make NH plan happen. Remember Hillary's flop?
But don't be surprised -- if elected -- Hillary promises and fails again. Her early history as a political "Goldwater girl" makes her a strange duck in the Dem party.
Pressure from the US community of corporations stands the best chance of making a NHP happen regardless the pol party in power because corps have a rational profit insentive to lobby for it.
In a nutshell, exportation of US manufacturing jobs is accellerating the Greenhouse gas problem. China - for one - is frantically building not-very-clean coal plants to support their rapid economic growth, including manufacture of not-very-clean automobiles that fail to meet the European Kyoto standard.
Slowing down the out-sourcing of American jobs will actually fit into a coordinated energy policy to mitigate the effects of global warming.
If Congress has lost the ability to act with common sense, perhaps we should, instead, start calling the Fortune 500 companies to start a NHP revolution.
HWS
National health insurance as a solution to the domestic partner benefits issue at my university seems quite a stretch to me. However, I’ll comment on both.
Once we approve of same sex marriages as legal, then the issue goes away. For heteros, they already have the marriage option-use it.
National health insurance is secondary to our Congress first adopting the Fair Tax change proposal. I bet you will see enough government revenue, job growth and economy stimulation to deal with the issue of national health care. After all, we have to have some revenues to pay for any government health program. We should cure our tax problems before curing health care. Fair Tax will help toward solving several current economic and social problems.
TO PASTORTIM: I am a little confused by your post. Has Rep Cretul personally attacked or directly insulted anyone. If so where could I verify this.
I also have a question for Pastor Tim. With do respect, don’t you see that politics and religion don’t always mix? Religious principles won’t always work when you are dealing with people who only see things their way. Unfortunately, certain extremes in this country are leading us down a troubling road. I’m sorry pastor, but that includes some members of the ministry as well.
By the way, I disagree with you and Cretul on the UF domestic partners issue. You are both wrong, it is the right thing to do. I am closer to and have more understanding of the domestic partners policy need than either of you.
Pat Strait is back!
pastortim;there will be a "season of peace" when sinners(Homosexuals,adultarers,fornicators, etc.)repent and do not try and push their sordid lifestyles on the masses..LOL
Eddie,
You help me understand why politics and religion don't always mix. Who are you folks trying to impress with your quotes from the Bible? Doesn't impress me. I read it but don't fee necessary to quote it. Don't know too many ministers who would use a political blog to do so.
As a supporter of free speech in our public library and elsewhere, I would never suggest that there is anything other than a provision for robust speech, especially political speech, under the First Amendment. However, I do want bring to the attention of people using this blog the fact that existing court interpretations place certain restrictions on speech.
It is pretty well known in Marion County that I have over the past five years defended the right of citizens to read in the public library books in the collection that are deemed objectionable by some citizens. The most publicized of these books are deemed too “liberal” by some in the county who call themselves religious conservatives. I didn’t choose these books for focus; the government did.
We have other books in the library offensive to many citizens – Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf, for instance. We also have books in the library containing racial epithets that have been the subject of formal complaint by a black citizen. Our county commissioners are not attacking access to these books. If they do, I will defend our right to read these books, too.
The county government is well aware of my willingness and preparation, along with attorneys with whom I’m allied, to move forward with a federal lawsuit should the county government violate the First Amendment rights of citizens in its operation of the public library. This is a major reason why the county commission has been more rhetoric than action on this matter for years.
Less well known, but a matter of public record, is that I donated to the library an anti-abortion essay by Ronald Reagan in memory of my grandparents. It is now in the collection. Also a matter of public record is that I donated to the library a racist novel written by an admirer of Adolph Hitler who founded a neo-Nazi organization in the United States. The library refused to add the book to the collection.
As a member of the public, I publicly objected to language in a draft library policy that would have prohibited religious activities in library meeting rooms. The language was removed so it is now permissible to hold religious activities, including religious ceremonies, in the library meeting rooms. An organization of atheists could use the same facilities.
The point is that my public record of support for free speech is quite strong. As far as this blog is concerned, I would never question the right of any citizen in this country to forcefully state his religious beliefs or to advocate government policies consistent with those beliefs. I also fully support the right of people to refer to another group of people, as I have seen done in this blog, using the same terminology used at a Ku Klux Klan rally outside Atlanta in the 1980’s that an investigative reporter covered.
Clearly, people also have the right to vigorously discuss or attack any public position I have taken on public policy, the qualifications or motivations of public officials, or other political issues.
All that having been said, comments in this blog of a personal nature about me, as well as threats I see to move further in that direction, cause me to remind people that defamation (making a provably false statement about someone) and invasion of privacy (making public private information about someone) are unlawful. When these actions take place, or are threatened to take place, in a manner designed to inhibit a person from exercising their First Amendment rights, they are especially serious.
The fact that the behavior occurs on the internet does not change this. Take a look at some of the legal cases developing already. People are learning the hard way that posting to a blog is publication to the world and that the courts can strip away the anonymity they mistakenly thought they had. As one attorney recently commented, if you want to be anonymous, you had better use a payphone. This is especially true here given the political and social connections between people using this blog.
I know one individual who posts to this blog who is so aware that he’s a hothead that he puts letters to the Star-Banner aside for 24 hours before he sends them. When people like that get hold of a technology that allows them to instantly publish to the world with the click of a mouse, they can get into trouble.
There is a world of difference in the law between an elected official, some radio personality who chooses to make public details of his personal life on his radio program, and a private citizen such as myself commenting on a public policy issue or the qualifications of an elected public official or even ridiculing those qualifications. As frustrating as some supporters of public officials may find this legal reality, citizens do not open their private lives for public inspection and debate simply by commenting on public figures such as elected officials.
Furthermore, no one is obligated to conceal their identity when they speak in order to lessen the chances that others will act illegally and have to suffer the consequences.
I don’t intend to debate anyone about this. Anyone who doesn’t understand what I have said may wish to consult an attorney and/or some of the relevant sources on the internet. Of course, if you are unclear where the legal lines are located in discussing people, you can always err on the side of caution by sticking to discussion of issues.
The reputation for honesty and integrity that I and other members of my family have developed in this county over the past century is not going to be sullied on this blog through defamation, nor are we going to have our privacy invaded.
If anyone here thinks smearing private citizens is the way to promote an elected official, they and that official may find their actions have exactly the opposite effect.
Below are two sections of a letter-to-the-editor in today’s Gainesville Sun taking issue with its liberal-leaning coverage concerning Larry Cretul and the domestic partners benefit issue at U of F:
“You indicated that approximately 120 people, around 3 percent of UF's current faculty, stand to benefit from the new policy. You also reported that the reason for the change is to attract otherwise uninterested intellectual talent to UF because of these benefits, claiming that 295 public and private colleges and universities around the country currently offer them, intimating that UF is behind the curve and needs to improve its standing among its peers.
You neglected to say that more than 6,400 other colleges and universities, more than 95 percent of the nation's total, do not offer such benefits. If anyone is exploiting the gay agenda it is Machen, UF's trustees, save one, and the Sun. As for the accusation that Cretul is trying to curry political favor, why should he? He is so highly respected across party lines that he ran unopposed in the 2004 election. He honorably and ethically represents everyone in his district.”
Gainesville Sun editorial:
Article published Dec 6, 2005
Reality and politics
Cretul's bill is another shot across the bow in the ongoing cultural wars that have helped to polarize politics in America.
The difference between Bernie Machen and Larry Cretul is simply this:
Machen is the president of a major graduate research university that aspires to national prominence. To achieve that goal, Machen deals with society as it is.
Cretul is a state legislator who enjoys the luxury of dealing with society as politicians would like it to be.
When UF's trustees, with just one dissention, agreed last week to offer health care benefits to domestic partners, their purpose was not to open a new front in the cultural wars. They were simply following the lead of many other reputable universities and major corporations across the nation that have decided to deal with the reality of American life in the 21st century.
The reality is that for all of the political furor over same-sex marriages and the so-called "gay agenda," Americans are increasingly choosing to lead lifestyles that do not necessarily conform to political, ideological or religious orthodoxy. Many of those who do so also happen to be talented scholars and creative employees who are highly sought after by business and academia and who, therefore, can pretty much "write their own ticket" when it comes to career options.
The offering of benefits for same-sex or unmarried domestic partners is a concession in business and higher education that society is changing and that the workplace must change with it.
Politicians tend to dwell in an alternate reality. Spurred by UF's action, Rep. Cretul, R-Ocala, promises to file a bill in the upcoming legislative session that would prohibit the use of public money for domestic benefits.
UF, by the way, has no intention of using public money for domestic benefits. Machen and the trustees made it clear that they will use UF Foundation funding. So why should Cretul make this a legislative issue?
The short answer is that conservatives have gotten pretty good at exploiting the "gay agenda" for political advantage.
Gay marriage is not legal in Florida, but there is likely to be a constitutional amendment on the ballot next fall to ban gay marriages in Florida. The chief motivation behind that initiative is to help Republicans get elected by vowing to protect the "sanctity of marriage."
In other words, it's just another shot across the bow in the ongoing cultural wars that have helped to polarize politics in America. Along those lines, Cretul's bill banning public funds for domestic benefits will simply provide more ammunition.
We commend President Machen and UF trustees for having the courage to make a politically risky decision. Like many executives and policy makers in academia and the private sector, they chose to deal with society as it is, not as the ideologues would like it to be.
Make no mistake; Florida will be a cultural war battleground in 2006. It will be bitter and it will be divisive and, ultimately, that conflict will play itself out in splendid isolation of the fundamental changes that have been occurring in real life; in a society that increasingly values diversity of thought and respects individual lifestyle choices.
Because unlike President Machen, Cretul and his fellow politicians still have the luxury of dealing with modern American life as they would like it to be rather than its reality.
Article published Nov 30, 2005
Cretul bashes benefits for gays
The lone conservative voice in Alachua County's legislative delegation opposes using public money to extend health insurance benefits to partners of gay and lesbian employees at the University of Florida and he's threatening to fight any proposal to do so in Tallahassee.
State Rep. Larry Cretul, R-Ocala, sent a letter to members of UF's board of trustees on Tuesday urging them to deny the health insurance proposal for same-sex and domestic partners when it comes up for a vote during the board's meeting on Friday.
"This proposed action is very troubling to me, many of my colleagues in the Legislature, and to the vast majority of taxpayers in the state of Florida," he wrote. Cretul, whose district includes a swath of western Marion County, eastern Levy County and a southern wedge of Alachua County that encompasses the UF campus, said he will file a bill prohibiting the use of taxpayer money for such a purpose.
"I don't object to gay couples receiving benefits in the private sector, but when you get into using taxpayers' dollars, that's when it becomes an issue," Cretul said Tuesday.
UF plans to cover as many as 120 people, and estimates it will cost the university between $500,000 and $1 million a year.
Kyle Cavanaugh, UF's vice president of human resources, said no state appropriations would be used to pay for the expanded insurance.
Federal contracts and grants, which pay the salaries for a significant portion of UF's faculty, would cover the bulk of the expense, Cavanaugh said.
Any additional money needed would come from a discretionary fund assigned to President Bernie Machen that is made up of money from the UF Foundation and other sources, Cavanaugh said.
"It's unclear just who would take advantage of the insurance," he said.
Cretul said he does not object to private funds, such as those from the UF Foundation, being used to pay for the plan. But he said he said he opposes any public money, whether it be state or federal.
UF officials have said expanding health insurance coverage to include domestic partners would boost UF's chances in the competition to recruit and retain top faculty. According to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian advocacy group, 295 colleges and universities around the country offer health insurance benefits to gay and lesbian partners.
Many of those - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, even the University of Michigan - are considered some of the best educational institutions in the country. UF, which is tied for 50th in U.S. News & World Report's university rankings, aspires to rank alongside them.
"I realize this is a very touchy subject for a lot of people on a personal basis," said board of trustees Chairman Manny Fernandez. "But I think that if we are going to ask the administration to move this university to the top 10 and they need something to stay competitive, then each of us should leave our personal feelings aside and ask what's right for this university."
The Human Rights Campaign also shows UF would be the only publicly funded university in the state extending benefits to same-sex couples.
Administrators with Florida International University in Miami confirmed earlier this year that the school offered "same-sex health stipends" to administrative and professional employees.
And in March, FIU officials said they planned to negotiate with its employee unions about extending the benefits to faculty and other union-represented positions.
Several of Florida's publicly funded community colleges already offer the benefits. They are Miami-Dade Community College, Hillsborough Community College and Broward Community College. And the city of Gainesville has offered domestic partner benefits since January 2000.
Cretul declined to comment on the fact that other publicly funded organizations had already implemented health insurance policies similar to those proposed by UF.
He added, however, that he doubted many people were aware of it.
"I'm sure there will be a lot of issues that pop up like that," Cretul said.
"Who knows what questions might be asked of me and other governmental bodies?"
Janine Young Sikes can be reached at (352) 337-0327 or sikesj@gvillesun.com.
Article published Nov 2, 2005
Cretul files House bill on flu vaccine production
State Rep. Larry Cretul, R-Ocala, has filed a bill in the Florida House of Representatives to try to fend off another vaccine shortage like the one last fall that saw long lines of seniors waiting for a flu shot.
"Last year's shortage highlighted a crisis we cannot allow to continue," Cretul said.
The flu vaccine crisis began when one British-based manufacturer, Chiron, had its license suspended because of health concerns. With only a limited number of companies making vaccine, all of them located overseas, there was an immediate rationing of flu vaccine.
Cretul's bill is sponsored in the Florida Senate by Sen. Mike Fasano of New Port Richey.
It was filed on the same day President Bush outlined a national strategy for dealing with a possible flu pandemic. Under the Bush plan, vaccine manufacturers would be immune from civil lawsuits caused by the dispensing of their product.
"That is one of the things that has caused vaccine manufacturers to leave the country," Cretul said Tuesday. "The profit margin in preparing vaccines is very slim, and one good suit could wipe them out."
Under Cretul's proposed legislation, the Department of Health would encourage vaccine manufacturers to locate in Florida. As part of the package, loans would be available to help them set up facilities and they would not be held liable for damages if they were sued, as long as they followed DOH and Food and Drug Administration guidelines in preparing their vaccines.
The Department of Health would also agree to buy a portion of all vaccine produced at the facility, after it received FDA approval.
Cretul said the planned location of Scripps Florida in Palm Beach County and the extensive research facilities at the University of Florida should help entice manufacturers to open production facilities in the state.
The proposed bill, HB311, is available online at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/. If passed into law, it would go into effect July 1.
Article published Dec 13, 2005
Legislative initiatives contradict each other
Two recent and seemingly conflicting Florida legislative initiatives summarized from a Web log (www.politicallyhomeless.blogspot.com) will add to the list of many high priority, complex and unresolved issues already surrounding the implementation of the class-size amendment.
(1) Several legislators are supporting elements of a national grass-roots movement called "First Class Education." It's goal is to have each school district in America direct at least 65 cents of every dollar spent on education away from administration and into classrooms.
(2) Resolutions introduced in the House and Senate would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow counties with more than 45,000 students to split districts. The new districts would have at least 20,000 students. The constitutional amendment would not force any school district to split; voters in each county would decide.
One initiative attempts to move more state funding out of administration and into the classroom. The other would create more administration and nonclassroom-related expense. The initiatives appear to strategically and financially conflict with one another.
Neither of the initiatives should be pursued at this time. However, of the two, First Class Education would get my endorsement.
It would also provide an advantage in helping to implement the class-size amendment by diverting more funds for hiring teachers to support the new class-size guidelines.
Stan Hanson,
Ocala
Article published Dec 14, 2005
Right-wing needs more compassion
I would think, that in this season of giving the birth of Christ; that these God-fearing citizens would have other things to do, give and accomplish than attempt to circumvent the rights of cohabitating adults.
When Jesus was born we learned to not first ask people what they're orientation, religion, political beliefs, etc., were before we could lend a helping hand. I'm not sure when, exactly the "right-wing" became the "correct-wing" (instead of a form of direction). But people who are trying to live in a proper manner, no matter what their race, heritage, religious beliefs should be allowed to continue life, as that is what we are all after here.
Please think of teaching love instead of hate, loathing and separation. I thought our country had learned this already.
Amy L. Kauper,
Gainesville
Article published Dec 13, 2005
Gator Nation is diverse group
It is interesting that Ronald Quinn (Voice, Dec. 7) used the word "we" in his call for University of Florida alumni to stand up to the "liberal nonsense" of extending relatively equal access to benefits to all employees of the University of Florida. Like Quinn, I am an alumnus (and current doctoral student) of UF, but his assumption that I agree with him is mistaken.
In fact, my education at UF has been a catalyst in my views being different from Quinn's.
A brief visit to the Plaza of Americas or the Reitz Union will expose one to small snatches of conversations colored by languages, dialects and topics that are greatly divergent from one's own frame of reference.
These people are of different ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexuality, and/or marital status than I?
If you are open to thoughts and ideas beyond the ones that you already possess, then every day at the University of Florida is an opportunity for personal and professional growth. We don't have to be Boston to understand that we are all in the family that is the great Gator Nation.
Cynthia J. Dugger,
Gainesville
On Nov. 30 a Sun story about benefits for same sex or domestic partners of UF employees used an unfair and inaccurate headline ("Cretul bashes benefits for gays") to portray him as a homophobic ideologue.
Now that would be an example of censoring.
So all of us bloggers are being threatened to “shut up”!
Isn’t it amazing? A man who has for years deplored the use of bullying, intimidation, and threats by others is now resorting to the exact same approach to quiet all of us on the blog.
I’m in a state of utter disbelief!
I forgot to add something. Thanks for all the articles about Larry Cretul. Other than taking up space on the blog, they don't change my mind on the issue. I read them all. Cretul has done the right thing wiht his domestic partners legislation. Good work on the flu vaccine bill-could be more jobs for Florida.
Also, don't know what Cretul's flu vaccine bill and an article about education are even doing in this section of the blog. Suggest they be moved to another section. Looks like someone is trying play games with the blog.
OH! "Diversity"-How intellectual!LOL. Because our society is growing more perverse and there are individuals of intelligence who commit adultary,fornication,and are into homosexuality etc etc certainly does not mean that they are entitled to the benefits offered to a married couple(Man and woman only)..
Who would have even thought we would see the day that I would have to even clarify what a husband and wife means!!LOL
What the blazes is going on here??
It is not intellectually superior to be gay or an adultarer!!Is it???
PS-I recently read an article about the very high IQ of individuals who "steal"through various white collar crimes..I was thinking that maybe UF should recruit them by offering them a neat benifit package??LOL I mean they are really "Smart".
Character should count for something in our society.I wouldnt want a really smart person with bad character traits teaching my kids anything,if I had a choice..
Webmaster,
I’m asking you to remove the threatening and intimidating letter from Mr. Creekbaum from the blog. I think it is wrong to allow him to use the tone he did against all of us. He is trying to stop free speech and that is wrong. Please honor my reqest and delete his letter.
WASHINGTON (Dec. 14) - Ford Motor Co. said Wednesday it would reinstate and expand its advertising in gay publications after criticism from gay rights groups.
Ford said in a letter it would restore advertising for its luxury Jaguar and Land Rover brands in gay publications and run corporate ads marketing all eight of its vehicle brands in the publications.
"It is my hope that this will remove any ambiguity about Ford's desire to advertise to all important audiences and put this particular issue to rest," wrote Joe Laymon, Ford's group vice president for corporate human resources.
Last week, Ford had said it would no longer advertise its luxury vehicles in several gay publications, citing a need to reduce its marketing costs across the board.
Gay groups asked Ford to restore the advertising - and suggested a connection between the cutback and pressure from conservative groups. Ford said there was no connection.
In late November, the American Family Association had canceled a boycott of Ford vehicles, which had been announced in May when the organization criticized the nation's No. 2 automaker for making contributions to gay rights groups, offering benefits to same-sex partners and recruiting gay employees
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I could care less what Ford does. What the state does with my money concerning domestic partner benefits is what I'm interested in. Ford is a poor example of an effective organization. Look at all their business problems. Maybe they should be spending more time on getting their business in order than gay advertising. I would never buy a Ford.
So someone wants the University of Florida to follow the lead of Ford Motor? Well that’s fine with me. How about increasing the annual medical deductibles for UF salaried employees by 33%, increase monthly medical premiums by 30%, take away health care coverage for employees’ stepchildren, and increase the health care expenses of UF retirees by $752 a year? Ford just did this, so I think UF should follow the practice.
See how ridiculous this whole private and public sector comparison can be. I agree with fisccal conservative, who cares what Ford does.
Removed a duplicate comment posted above.
The article on education legislation above looks like an edited version of one in the Star Banner. The one I saw was much more thorough. I agree with the reporter, we need to get more money benefiting the classroom teachers. Not sure how an article on education got here. Doubt it will get many comments.
the "article" on education legislation is a letter-to-the-editor of the Gainesville Sun from the blogmaster.
Sorry, Anonymous
WRONG! Try again.
I know the true identity of the Blog Master!
I’m going to show you a partial picture. I will fill in the picture for you over the next few months. Copy and paste the following to your browser:
www.bigfoto.com/miscellaneous/photos-05/glasses-sg26.jpg
More to come.
My new truck for Christmas won't be a Ford.
Anonymous,
I really do know who the Blogmaster is.
I haven't yet seen a correct guess on the blog. Think politician.
Blogmaster a politician?
No way, not any of them smart enough--especially locally.
Including Cretul
I said ALL of them, didn't I?
I have second thoughts about ALL.
I would have to exclude Randy Harris. He would have the smarts to set up a blog. He is probably the smartest politician in the county. Maybe this is his.
Harris the smartest. Shows you the sorry state of politics!
The President of FSU must be gleeful about UF’s decision to give unmarried, domestic partners health benefits.
Just wait until the legislature has a tough decision between spending money at FSU or UF. My bet goes to FSU.
As Prez Reagan would say, there you go again. Bloggers are again throwing stones at some of our politicians, claiming they are “intellectually challenged”. I guess you just need to answer the question: whose sitting in the positions of influence, them or you?
I agree, as suggested above, that if the United States had national health insurance, we would not be reading on this blog about health insurance benefits for domestic partners at UF.
To the extent such insurance was funded with tax dollars, we would instead be reading on the blog arguments about whether gays and lesbians should be excluded from the plan as a way to express disapproval of them. To the extent that participants contributed premiums to such an insurance plan, we would be reading arguments that a separate risk class should be created for gays and lesbians.
As long as gays and lesbians are hated as much they are, there will be such issues along with politicians who will mine the hatred for votes and political operatives who will help them do it. Trying to shift the discussion to health care in general, an important topic, is just avoiding the issue.
Brian-I want to make it clear that I certainly dont "Hate" Gay and Lesbians.I have had very close and dear friends who were Gay.One was a person I grew up with that Killed himself at a young age.I do not and will not "discriminate"against a person who is Gay..
I am against the GAY AGENDA though,in that it trys to justify a blatantly sinful lifestyle and to normalise it..Homosexuality is a "Sin" no matter how you slice it and try and justify it.To give benefits to people who are in "Sin" and equate this with the Pillar of "mariage" is just rediculous..To think that we need to do this in order to recruit intelligent people is also absurd.
Marriage is a sacred covenant between a husband(Man) and a Wife(Female)..Once you tamper with this institution, to try and fit a sinful lifestyle into it,it becomes a very slippery slope for our society.Adultary,fornication and other sinful activities have nothing to do with homosexuality but are equally sinful and do not warrant special benefits either.
I have met some "Gay" people who feel the same way as I do on this subject.I also have known a very "Gay" man who was living a homosexual lifestyle that has completely changed his life around and is now very "Married" in the traditional sence and has kids..No longer participates in homosexuality.Is happy.
Lets call a spade a spade!!
We cannot vote to give benefits to people living in sinful relationships just because they may be "Smart" in other ways.
Participating in homosexuality is not a "Smart" thing to do.It should not be rewarded with special benefits that are given to legally married couples.Private or public sectors.
Right on, What The Blazes. I'm with you.
I’m not sure how the discussion above got so focused on one US automaker -- Ford. Let’s look at the top automaker, and see what they do. According to the most recent annual survey of the most admired companies by Fortune, that would be Toyota, which also provides domestic partner benefits (according to the database on the Human Rights Campaign website).
Using those same sources of information, of the ten most admired companies in the United States, seven provide domestic partner benefits for health insurance and an eighth provides them in some subsidiaries. On a list of the most admired company in each of 65 industries, the majority provide domestic partner benefits for health insurance. It appears to me that those who do are generally in industries with a higher proportion of knowledge workers.
According to the article “Domestic partners covered by benefits” posted to The Independent Alligator Online on December 5, UF VP of Human Resources Kyle Cavanaugh says 23 of the top 25 universities provide these types of benefits.
Just about any way you slice it, these types of benefits have become the rule, not the exception, at the most excellent educational institutions and private companies. No wonder UF is doing it.
I still don't want my tax dollars used for this. How about matching some of the benefit cuts the other great companies have been doing. Also, some of the layoffs people in some of these great companies have had to live through. UF and the auto industry are not apples and apples. What UF does and what other education institutions do is nice to know, but no one ever said we need to match them on every aspect of policy. UF is still wrong in my viewpoint. But who cares now--they are going to pay for the benefit with non-taxpayer money or are they. Understand they are having some second thoughts about the funding of the change.
Is the issue of domestic partner benefits for state employees a political issue? You bet! If you wonder why most of the support for what UF did comes from my Democrat dominated county, here is why:
The Alachua County Democratic Party stands for:
No economic growth in the private sector.
Income redistribution.
Abortion as the legal and ethical equivalent of other methods of birth control.
Discrimination against heterosexual, married Euro-American males.
I’ll let the legislature resolve the policy for state employees; not what car manufacturers (foreign or otherwise) or liberal, “elite” education institutions do. So convince your legislator that you are right about the UF policy, not me. I have made up my mind.
The Democratic Party of Alachua County will be interested to know that their mission statement has been so grossly misunderstood and mistated.
Based on my knowledge of Alachua politics, this is a very accurate statement of our local Democratic Party. Reason the Republicans are starting to make headway up here.
As published in the Gainseville Sun on December 10:
Partner benefits should be allowed
I must confess that I find Rep. Larry Cretul's campaign against UF's proposed partner benefits rather puzzling. There are better ways of looking at the issue of partner benefits.
First, those who are in a heterosexual marriage, as I happen to be, typically have the privilege of subsidized health and life insurance for our husbands or wives. Given the skyrocketing cost of health care, I'd say that these are pretty "special" rights.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call this a "heterosexual agenda," but our default policy isn't what I'd call equitable.
Second, companies with such policies grant them to all married employees, whether or not their marriages (or parenting) prove successful. So I have a hard time linking a limited policy to "family values."
Third, partners of our fellow employees should not have to resort to diagnostic roulette to get needed medications. I know of a case where an employee had to simulate the partner's symptoms every time the partner got sick.
Doctors usually need to see or hear the most telling symptoms to make a definitive diagnosis.
I wouldn't want my health care dispensed through impersonation and guesswork, or my husband's and child's.
After looking at recent headlines in The Sun, I think I'll spend more time worrying about bedbug infestations than about what other people do in their bedrooms.
Marsha Bryant,
Gainesville
The letter above makes an equal pay for equal work argument similar to the one I made above in a post to the blog at 1:37 PM on December 5. The argument I made was broader, though, and applied to discrimination in compensation against all single workers, not just those who claim to be in domestic partnerships.
Brian Creekbaum......
Why don't you send your "support" for gay benefits to your state legislator, like "Gator 4 Life" suggested. That's where the issue for state employees will most likely be decided. If you have a good argument, then your legislator will listen to you. You have not convinced me, but maybe you can convince the state legislature.
UF is a dead issue, we can stop beating that horse. UF administration now has the financial responsiblilty to come up with non-taxpayer money from year to year---end of story.
Will be interesting to see if they can continue to meet their obligation to the UF gay community. My annual contribution to the Foundation will go to $0 from $1000 for 2006!
From the article “Domestic partners covered by benefits” posted to The Independent Alligator Online on December 5:
But Warrington warned that private money may decrease after word about the program spreads.
"As a donor, I would be offended if my money went to this program," he said during discussion of the proposal.
Before the meeting, UF President Bernie Machen said the opposite is just as possible.
"It might stimulate private giving," he said.
I’m not surprised to read above that the American Family Association got stuffed at Ford. Just look at the spectacular failure of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) boycott of Disney.
Just 28 Fortune 500 companies offered domestic partner benefits in 1996 when the SBC passed a resolution threatening Disney with boycott. The Number 1 moral offense listed in the resolution was ““establishing of an employee policy which accepts and embraces homosexual relationships for the purpose of insurance benefits.” The SBC made good on its boycott threat the following year.
This past summer, the SBC ended the boycott with Disney still offering domestic partner benefits and the number of Fortune 500 companies offering them having climbed to 230, a nearly ten-fold increase from when the boycott began.
What a joke.
Blah, blah, blah, blah!!!
Convince your legislators.
Your arguments and newspaper clippings are getting very old!
Quoting from B. Creekbaum:
"I’m not sure how the discussion above got so focused on one US automaker -- Ford."
So why do you keep bringing up Ford?
I would also be very careful in tossing stones at the SBC. We just might find out who is really a joke in our community. Have you analyzed the number of republicans in office here lately?
I'm totally lost by the discussion in this section. Am I missing something. Isn't the issue simply should or should not taxpayer money be used to pay for benefits for unmarried domestic partners of state employees? I guess being fairly new here, I don't understand some of the personality issues involved in the discussion.
I thouggt it was a prettty simple question.
I agree with CFB, the joke would be to underestimate the influence of the SBC based on its Disney experience. The SBC is a force for getting politicians to consider issues of morality in their campaigns. That they are doing very well, especially with southern Republicans.
The issue posted for this section of the blog is: “Should the state of Florida pay for benefit coverage for domestic partners of unmarried, gay or heterosexual employees? Why or why not?” Clearly, anyone tired of reading comments on this issue has the option of tuning to something else in the blog or elsewhere on the internet.
I find the “no brain drain at UF” argument above unconvincing for two reasons. First, even if the unconfirmed report is true that UF President Machen knows of only two UF faculty who have left in the past two years because of the absence of domestic partner benefits, it is unlikely Machen knows the total number who have left for this reason because they wouldn’t necessarily want to disclose sexual information to the university. More important, whatever the number who have left may be, that number ignores how many qualified people have not come to UF because of lack of the benefits and how many would not come in the future if UF did not offer the benefits in a competitive labor market in which such benefits are already common and becoming increasingly common at a rapid rate.
My comments on failed boycotts pertain to the boycotts, not the organizations that ran them, and can be taken as a prediction that a UF donor boycott over the domestic partner benefits will also fail. We have seen no evidence on the blog about such a donor backlash at Ohio State University in Stan’s native state, a case that I raised earlier. Perhaps no such evidence exists. In fact, I haven’t seen any evidence on the blog of any successful university donor boycott over this issue. Perhaps no such evidence exists.
I don't really want to hear anything about the Republicans and their morality.
They lied about WMD.
They cheated their way around the law to spy of US citizens.
They are stealing from their own coffers to live the high life; as in Tom DeLay and Rep. Cunningham.
PLEEEEEASE!!
So would someone tell us, what do the Democrats have to offer. Other than great words--nothing!
Locally, it is really pathetic how little influence and guts the Democrats have to speak up on issues.
Other than Weesner, a convert from the Republicans, there is no Party plan and no one speaking out.
Harris and the Republicans will continue to run all over the Democrats. Who are they going to offer? Fitos, Weesner, Butler, Sizemore? Give me a break, they are all losers!!
Bernie Machen has been a big disappointment to many University of Florida alumni. His big bonuses are financially irresponsible by the Board of Trustees. I give him two more years, at the most. Just another Zook--a flash in the pan. Machen reminds me of Cheney. I think they both had the same personality and morality coach. As someone said, we don’t need all of these people who don’t understand Florida coming here and telling us what to do.
Some one wrote Machen knows of only two UF faculty who have left in the past two years because of the absence of domestic partner benefits, it is unlikely Machen knows the total number who have left for this reason because they wouldn’t necessarily want to disclose sexual information to the university.
So 'splain to me how will they qualify for same sex benefits if they wouldn’t necessarily want to disclose sexual information to the university?
Agree on the personality attacks on every blog. But notice it is libs who complain most.
Looks like this thread topic is proving popular with our bloggers.
It has set a new record for number of comments. Currently at 150, this beats the record of 144 for the thread on the “Ocala City Elections”.
Let’s keep hearing from you!
The State should not pay. I believe that legal marital status should be used to determine what benefits are given.
PROTECT MARRIAGE
Please sign the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment Petition to legally define marriage in Florida as the union between one man and one woman.
You can download a petition at: www.Florida4Marriage.org. or call 407-251-5130 to get one.
ACLU is challenging the ballot initiative because the referendum contains ambiguous language and addresses more than one subject.
Probably not needed. I believe there are already statutes on the books to cover defining marriage, so the amendment may not be that important.
I notice someone is using a name similar to mine. Do we have some people playing name games on the blog? Someone left a comment using my name last week. I let it go. However, this is not right.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Some body uses my name all the time too.
The posting at 2:42 PM by "stan' was removed by us at his request. He did not enter the comment posted.
We would appreciate bloggers not using other bloggers identity. If we can verify that anyone has done this inappropriately, we will delete the comments made by those duplicating your blogger name.
If you determine that another blogger has posted comments with you blogger name, e-mail us and we will consider deleting them.
"fiscon"
Your blogger name is too similar to that of Fiscal Conservative, who has a “first-on” preference in blogger names. To avoid confusion, please select a new name when you enter comments in the future. Otherwise, we will delete any comments entered using the name “fiscon”.
The university’s vice president of human resources, Kyle Cavanaugh, noted that 23 out of the top 25 universities in the country offer domestic partnership benefits to their employees.
Numerous studies have shown that domestic partner benefits do not have a significant impact on the overall cost of health care and insurance and can have a positive impact on hiring, retention and employee morale.
So what Brian, I mean omarion and franklin. We will wait and see what long term advantages gay benefits provides.
Larry Cretul and many others are so right in their stand on domestic benefits for state employees. The gay benefits supporters can fill the blog with as many comments as they want
about the University of Florida's policy. They haven’t changed my mind about other state employees.
The issue is not about left or right wing politics. The arguments and comments have gone way too far in those directions. It is all about legal marriage and preserving the rights of legally married people.
Please sign the petition for the protect marriage amendment.
Taxpayers should not have to pay for unmarried couples (gay or otherwise) receiving benefits as state employees.
I thought Larry Cretul was going to propose some legislation to stop the state from paying domestic partner benefits. I haven't seen or heard a thing from him on some legislation.
My Orb is glowing green. That means "legislation coming very soon".
Only 11 of 50 (22%) state governments offer state employees domestic partner benefits. Not overwhelming support at the state government level.
Not very many States are giving benefits to domestic partners. So let all of the Florida universities do their own thing and pay for the benefit with other than taxpayer money. Wouldn't that seem a reasonable solution?
Each University could then give whatever benefits they want to whomever they want...carwashing, housecleaning, home decorating, massage, aromatherapy, etc.
A Report by the People For the American Way Foundation
The recent highly publicized ad campaign by a coalition of fifteen Religious Right organizations is the latest tactical ploy in a long-term political strategy of vilification and political marginalization of gay and lesbian Americans. Far from the campaign of compassion that Religious Right leaders have portrayed, the recent ads further an explicit political agenda that seeks to criminalize gay relationships and deny basic rights to gays and lesbians in a range of critical areas: employment, housing, and families.
Anti-gay politics have long been at the core of Religious Right fundraising and organizing efforts. As the Religious Right becomes an increasingly powerful element of the GOP base, anti-gay rhetoric and policies have become more prominent in party platforms, legislative fights, and public policy at local, state, and national levels. Republican Party leaders risk being caught between public support for equal rights for gays and lesbians and the unremitting hostility toward gay rights from Religious Right groups that form the party's core activist base. Congressional leaders' willingness to embrace anti-gay rhetoric and legislation may be part of a strategy to energize Religious Right voters for the fall congressional elections, and it may reflect the longer term impact of the Religious Right's growing strength within the party. Nevertheless, some GOP leaders are concerned that the party's close identification with anti-gay bigotry may cost it support among the general public in the year 2000.
This memo briefly analyzes elements of the Religious Right's broader anti-gay political strategy; our staff can provide in-depth information on any of these topics. People For the American Way Foundation has monitored the Religious Right political movement and its attacks on gays and lesbians for nearly two decades. The Andrew Heiskell National Resource Library, which is open to researchers and journalists, has catalogued a wealth of original source material, including Religious Right groups' direct mail and television and radio broadcasts. In addition, People For the American Way Foundation publishes an annual report called Hostile Climate, which extensively documents incidents of institutionalized anti-gay bigotry and discrimination from around the country
Must be an old report. Notice the reference to the year 2000 elections:
"Nevertheless, some GOP leaders are concerned that the party's close identification with anti-gay bigotry may cost it support among the general public in the year 2000."
Why don't you present your own viewpoint rather than using "splogs". At least give us your interpretation of this "old report".
Are you of the opinion that the Republican Party is anti-gay? Just what is your point of view?
The blog comments have pretty well narrowed down the two positions on the domestic benefits issue. One group wants to use what UF decided on this policy to whipsaw the rest of state government to do the same. Another group says that what UF did has no relevance in deciding what proper public policy is for other state employees.
The domestic benefits policy for state employees will likely be resolved by the state legislature. However, as mentioned by many other bloggers, those contributing points of view on the blog should contact their legislators with the same arguments they have presented.
I have contacted my legislator and several others. I believe there is a good chance during the 2006 session for “bi-partisan” support and approval of a law to keep what UF did from expanding to other state agencies.
Perhaps a little less posturing and a bit more direct political action from all of us would be better. Let’s have a contest of legislative influence rather than a contest of blog comments. That’s where it really counts.
Blogmaster,
You better add another section, it took me forever to get to the bottom of this column!
WOW this is really a HOT topic I just wanted to say... Stan! You didn't tell me you had millions and a secret agenda to go with it??? I'm not sure what that has to do with this blog, but Brian seems to really be interested in that so it MUST be so and I am hurt that you didn't share that with me over coffee. I guess I will have to keep reading the blog to find out more about you. Brian, if you are out there (and by the number of posts I am sure you are) maybe you can tell me more of what you know about MR. HANSON, his millions and his yankee ways.
Article published Jan 5, 2006
Cretul bill limits partner benefits
OCALA - Clad in a Florida Gator necktie, Rep. Larry Cretul promoted legislation Wednesday that would bar the use of state dollars for the University of Florida's new domestic partnership health care plan.
At the first-ever news conference held in his new district office on State Road 200 - a stretch dotted with large churches - Cretul read from a bill he filed Tuesday. The bill prohibits the use of taxpayer money for state university and community college health care plans that benefit the partners of gay and lesbian employees. UF trustees passed such a plan last month, but said it will not require any state money.
"The bill is not intended to denounce or discriminate against anyone," Cretul, R-Ocala, said. "The bill simply clarifies what already exists in Florida law. . . . Colleges and universities are in a position if they wish to use alternate funding for employee benefits."
Since Florida doesn't recognize same-sex unions, Cretul argues it's apparently illegal to extend benefits to domestic partners. He further added that he has "personal" objections to domestic partnership benefits, which are offered by about 8,000 colleges, government agencies and private corporations.
State money is now used to fund health benefits for married couples at UF.
The bill could go before Legislative committees in the coming weeks, and be considered by the full Legislature when the session begins in March.
When UF passed its health-care plan in December, President Bernie Machen said it was a vital step toward recruiting quality faculty and moving into the ranks of the nation's top 10 public universities. Five of the top 10 public universities extend similar benefits.
Cretul, who says he's had strong support for the bill among his constituents, said he believes UF can achieve its goals without domestic partnership benefits.
"I can maybe understand their argument, but I don't agree with their argument," he said.
Miami-Dade, Hillsborough and Broward Community Colleges all offer domestic partnership benefits.
Jesse Alvarez, vice provost of human resources at Miami-Dade, did not confirm Wednesday whether state money was used to fund the program.
"Many institutions use this across the country," he said in a Tuesday phone interview. "This is not an unusual benefit. I didn't think we were doing anything controversial."
Though domestic partners can get coverage under the plan at Hillsborough Community College, the school doesn't make any contributions to partners with state dollars, according to Kay Sanborn, manager of benefits.Broward Community College officials did not return calls to discuss their plan Tuesday or Wednesday.
Cretul has been vocal in his opposition since UF officials started publicly discussing their intentions. From the beginning, in anticipation of such opposition, UF didn't plan to use state money to fund its program, said Kyle Cavanaugh, vice president of human resources. The UF plan, which could cost as much as $1 million a year, will be funded by private donations and grants, some of which are federally funded.
"It was designed to avoid any funding controversy," Cavanaugh said Wednesday.
Cretul's bill only bars the use of state money for plans at community colleges and universities. It does not stretch to other state-supported agencies or local governments.
"Local government, local control, they have to answer to their constituency," he said.
The city of Gainesville has offered domestic partnership benefits since January 2000.
Though Cretul maintains personal objections to domestic partnership benefits, he has accepted campaign contributions from several private companies that offer such plans, according to a gay and lesbian civil rights group called the Human Rights Campaign.
The group said Cretul took a total of $1,800 in contributions in 2004 from Bank of America, Chevron Texaco Corp. and Disney Worldwide Services Inc., all of which extend domestic partner benefits. He also accepted $500 from AvMed Inc., the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) that has arranged UF's benefits plan.
When asked if he would stop taking money from companies that offer domestic partnership plans, Cretul said, "Good question. I'll have to go back and look at that."
WOW, Stan the Man! Someone is getting dangerously close to invasion of your personal privacy!
The article from the Gainesville paper is fairly good, considering they are seldom balanced on anything done by a Republican. Glad to see that Larry Cretul is moving forward with his bill. There are many UF employees and alumni who support him, including me.
I find it curious that those who were involved in pushing the UF Domestic Partner Benefits remain so concerned about the bill. After all, no state funds are being used to pay for the UF Plan and the bill won’t apply to UF. So why the concern? I’ll give you my opinion and that of others at UF. Larry Cretul has thrown a curve ball at their plans for shifting the funding of the benefit plan to the state once the “ruckus” over its implementation settles down.
Please don't forget to sign the Save Marriage Amendment Petition.
Hey, Charles. Where are you? Aren't you an old (sorry about that) Gator? We need to hear from you on the University's policy.
A BILL
To provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act'.
SEC. 2. BENEFITS TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General- A domestic partner of an employee shall be entitled to benefits available to and obligations imposed upon a spouse of an employee.
(b) Certification of Eligibility- In order to obtain benefits under this Act, an employee shall file an affidavit of eligibility for benefits with the Office of Personnel Management certifying that the employee and the domestic partner of the employee--
(1) are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely;
(2) have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement;
(3) are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract;
(4) share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations;
(5) are not married to or domestic partners with anyone else;
(6) understand that willful falsification of information within the affidavit may lead to disciplinary action and the recovery of the cost of benefits received related to such falsification; and
(7)(A) are same sex domestic partners , and not related in a way that, if the 2 were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside; or
(B) are opposite sex domestic partners , and are not related in a way that would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside.
(c) Dissolution of Partnership-
(1) IN GENERAL- An employee or domestic partner of an employee who obtains benefits under this Act shall file a statement of dissolution of the domestic partnership with the Office of Personnel Management not later than 30 days after the death of the employee or the domestic partner or the date of dissolution of the domestic partnership.
(2) DEATH OF EMPLOYEE- In a case in which an employee dies, the domestic partner of the employee at the time of death shall be deemed a spouse of the employee for the purpose of receiving benefits under this Act.
(3) OTHER DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP-
(A) IN GENERAL- In a case in which a domestic partnership dissolves by a method other than death of the employee or domestic partner of the employee, any benefits received by the domestic partner as a result of this Act shall terminate.
(B) EXCEPTION- In a case in which a domestic partnership dissolves by a method other than death of the employee or domestic partner of the employee, any health benefits received by the domestic partner as a result of this Act shall continue for a period of 60 days after the date of the dissolution of the partnership. The domestic partner shall pay for such benefits in the same manner that a former spouse would pay for such benefits under applicable provisions of chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
(d) Confidentiality- Any information submitted to the Office of Personnel Management under subsection (b) shall be used solely for the purpose of certifying an individual's eligibility for benefits under subsection (a).
(e) Definitions- For purposes of this Act:
(1) DOMESTIC PARTNER- The term `domestic partner' means an adult person living with, but not married to, another adult person in a committed, intimate relationship.
(2) BENEFITS- The term `benefits' means benefits under--
(A) chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code (relating to compensation for work injuries);
(B) subchapter III of chapter 83 of such title (relating to the Civil Service Retirement System);
(C) chapter 84 of such title (relating to the Federal Employees' Retirement System);
(D) chapter 87 of such title (relating to life insurance); and
(E) chapter 89 of such title (relating to health insurance).
(3) EMPLOYEE- The term `employee' has the meaning given such term by--
(A) section 8101(1) of title 5, United States Code, when used with respect to benefits described in paragraph (2)(A);
(B) section 8331(1) of such title, when used with respect to benefits described in paragraph (2)(B);
(C) section 8401(11) of such title, when used with respect to benefits described in paragraph (2)(C);
(D) section 8701(a) of such title, when used with respect to benefits described in paragraph (2)(D); and
(E) section 8901(1) of such title, when used with respect to benefits described in paragraph (2)(E).
(4) OBLIGATIONS- The term `obligations' means any duties or responsibilities that would be incurred by the spouse of an employee.
SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED FRINGE BENEFITS TO DOMESTIC PARTNERS .
(a) In General- Section 106 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to contributions by employer to accident and health plans) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e) Treatment of Domestic Partners - The provisions of section 2 of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act shall apply to employees and domestic partners of employees for purposes of this section and any other benefit which is not includible in the gross income of employees by reason of an express provision of this chapter.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.
Interesting bill, which Republican introduced it?
Let's see if it passes.
P.S.: A good example of why people are upset with our congressional leadership.
I bet Cliff Stearns sponsored the bill!
i bet the bill is bogus and someone put it on the blog trying to be funny. i'm going to check it out. since it has no number or sponsors referenced, it may not be an actual bill. perhaps one of our bloggers thinks we will buy this without checking. hope they do pass this, it will show how stupid congress is becoming.
I don’t trust any of these long articles that are put on the blog without comment and no response to questions about them. I’m going to just start scrolling right by them.
Congressman Barney Frank appealed to conferees on the Armed Services Authorization bill to drop a very broadly-worded provision that was clearly intended to insulate the Boy Scouts of America from any federal actions against their anti-gay policy, but is drafted so broadly as to become an interference with the work of all federal agencies, the great majority of which are, of course, not supposed to be governed by this bill.
By offering health
benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees, this bill will bring employment practices in the federal government in line with
those of America's largest and most successful corporations.
The number of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partner benefits has increased tenfold since 1995 and stood at 216 at the end
of 2004. HRC's own research shows that almost 8,300 private and public employers nationwide provide domestic partnership benefits
to their employees, a 13 percent increase over last year.1 Many of America's leading companies, including the "Big Three" automakers,
IBM, Microsoft, Shell Oil, Walt Disney, Fannie Mae, Citigroup, Xerox, AOL Time Warner, and United and American Airlines offer
these benefits. In addition, 11 states and 188 local governments offer their public employees domestic partnership benefits. These
include cities in every part of the country, from Los Angeles to New York City, to Madison, Wisconsin and Iowa City.
The federal government is by far the nation's largest employer, with almost two million employees, and is constantly competing for
new and more qualified employees. Unfortunately, unlike many in the private and public sectors, the federal government has yet to
offer domestic partners health benefits, resulting in a recruitment and retention handicap in the federal workforce. A 1999 Society of
Human Resources Management and Commerce Clearing House survey found domestic partnership benefits to be one of the top three
recruiting incentives among all employees.
In addition, by offering domestic partnership benefits, the federal government would not only improve the quality of its workforce, but
also demonstrate its commitment to fairness and equality for all Americans. Benefits comprise a significant portion of all employee
compensation. By not offering domestic partnership benefits to its employees, the federal government is not providing equal pay for the
equal work of these employees. The legislation would also require domestic partners to have the same obligations under federal law.
A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance
coverage to same-sex partners. The time has come to follow the lead of corporate America and the American public. The Domestic
Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same
basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for both same- and opposite-sex domestic partners of federal employees, would
include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits.
Sincerely,
David M. Smith
See State of the Workplace 2004, Human Rights Campagin (www.hrc.org).
Let the federal government do it. Doesn't mean the states have to follow. Only 11 of 50 states offer the benefit. The survey of public reaction was done in 2000. Might be different now and might be different in Florida. I will leave this to our legislature to decide, based on input from the citizens of Florida.
Article published Jan 9, 2006
YOUR OPINION
Monday
Doubting Cretul
There is good reason to doubt the seriousness of state Rep. Larry Cretul
when it comes to his domestic partner benefits legislation.
Cretul’s bill does nothing to stop counties, municipalities, school
districts and sheriff departments in Florida that provide such benefits from
using state tax dollars to pay for them. It does nothing to end support of
such benefits with state tax dollars paid to state vendors that provide
those benefits to their employees. Then, there’s the campaign contribution
that Cretul pocketed from Disney Worldwide Services in 2004.
Throughout his political career, Cretul has been a member of a Southern
Baptist church in Ocala. In 1996, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)
passed a resolution threatening Disney with economic boycott because of
immorality. The SBC made good on it the following year when it asked
believing families to forgo even the most wholesome Disney fare to make a
moral statement to the company.
Southern Baptist families making this sacrifice, until the SBC ended the
boycott a few months ago, had a right to expect Southern Baptist political
elites like Cretul to sacrifice, too, by cutting off economic relations with
Disney.
The SBC’s 1996 moral indictment of Disney included “establishing of an
employee policy which accepts and embraces homosexual relationships for the
purpose of insurance benefits.”
If Cretul believed providing health insurance to domestic partners
significantly threatened the institution of marriage, he could have
expressed his moral concern by refusing Disney’s contribution and telling
everyone why. He didn’t.
I would be more inclined to believe Cretul is acting on moral conviction,
rather than just looking for fodder for a future campaign ad, if he hadn’t
gone AWOL in his church’s culture war when the check showed up.
Brian L. Creekbaum
Our coffee group feels that the letter from Mr. Creekbaum will be a great benefit to Cretul's campaign. We believe he is running this year. Having Creekbaum opposing Cretul's positiion on the gay benefits issue is sure to score points with the many Cretul supporters. It scores with us. We will be sure the letter gets good distribution.
Might be that quite a few people disagree with you that this might be good new:
Article published Jan 11, 2006
Cretul's grand stand
Sponsoring a bill to prevent UF from spending state money on domestic partner benefits helps firm up his GOP base.
Like thousands of reputable corporations and institutions of higher learning across the nation, the University of Florida has decided to offer health care benefits to domestic partners of its employees, including those who happen to be gay and lesbian.
Understanding that the mere mention of words like "gay" and "lesbian" is likely to set off tremors in Tallahassee, UF trustees and officials were very candid from the outset about what they intended to do. They said up front that the costs of domestic partner benefits would be covered - not by state dollars - but by private donations and grants.
Which prompted state Rep. Larry Cretul, R-Ocala, to announce that he would file legislation to make it illegal for state universities and community colleges to fund domestic partner benefits with state dollars.
While acknowledging his "personal" objections to domestic benefits, Cretul wanted everyone to know that there was nothing, well, personal about any of this.
"This bill is not intended to denounce or discriminate against anyone," he said. "The bill simply clarifies what already exists in Florida law."
All of which raises several interesting questions.
First. Does Rep. Cretul think UF officials are lying to him? That they intend to pour state dollars into "gay" benefits as soon as his back is turned?
If so, that doesn't say much about his relationship with UF.
Second. If there is no need for this bill - if UF isn't lying - then why is Cretul's bill necessary?
Third, if Rep. Cretul's really has "personal" objections to domestic partner benefits, why does he routinely accept campaign donations from companies that extend them?
Skip that last question. As we're finding out in Washington, in the wake of the latest lobbying scandal, politicians are not nearly as discriminating as they profess to be when it comes to taking campaign cash.
Still, why sponsor a bill that's not needed in order to keep the University of Florida from doing something it's already said it isn't going to do?
The obvious answer is that this is an election year and Rep. Cretul is making campaign hay. Why else call a press conference to alert the world that he's sponsoring a bill that "simply clarifies what already exists in Florida law"?
Let's face it, outside the corporate boardrooms and university administration buildings, the so-called "gay agenda" is still a hot button political issue. UF's candor gives Cretul a golden opportunity to firm up his conservative base.
Call it old fashioned political grandstanding. Cretul's non-discriminatory, anti-gay bill is a fine promotional vehicle this election year.
Still, we're sorry Cretul finds it expedient to play politics with the University of Florida. Florida's leading institution of higher education is in Cretul's district, and he likes to paint himself as the university's champion in the House.
How awkward it must be for Rep. Cretul to have to fight for an institution whose decision - to treat all of its employees fairly - he finds morally so repugnant.
How awkward it must be for him to accept thousands of dollars in donations from reputable companies whose employee practices UF now seeks to emulate.
How unfortunate it is that Cretul now presumes to establish fiscal policy for state universities in utter contempt of a state constitutional amendment which clearly delegates that authority to the Board of Governors.
so tell us where the above article came from. most likely some liberal rag. i doubt cretul's bill will get a deep six. it will be debated and if it is not passed so be it. cretul has even more of my respect for standing up on the issue than he has had at any other time.
Maybe UF is lying!
Article published Jan 13, 2006
GOP top backer of marriage amendment
The Republican Party of Florida is by far the biggest financial backer of a proposed ballot initiative that would change the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage.
The party gave the Florida4Marriage.org $150,000 in November, which accounts for more than three-quarters of what the group raised over the entire year, according to a campaign finance report submitted by the group this week.
"Their support both financially and through endorsements is very significant," John Stemberger, chairman of the petition effort, said Thursday.
Machen told the Associated Press, “This is not just about the people who need this benefit. This is also about people who consider the benefit a statement of the climate of the campus where they are going to work.”
we're getting the full picture now in regard to Cretul's domestic partner benefit grandstand:
The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, head of the House Education Council and a vocal opponent of unmarried and gay couples.
Better check the list of co-sponsors, there are more than just Baxley.
Post a Comment
<< Home