Here Comes Taxpayer Funded Alternative Lifestyles!

Janet Napolitano

Last year, you failed to pass a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

Your failure to do so gave homosexual advocates the green light to force you and other Arizonans to pay for benefits for their lifestyle choice. [Read article]

Governor Janet Napolitano submitted the change to the Department of Administration which will avoid the entire legislative process.

You now have less than 30 days to leave your comment with the State of Arizona.

Late Note: After digging around the Secretary of State’s website (Good Grief Jan Brewer! You make it too difficult to find this information!) we were able to locate the actual link to the proposed rule change. Click here to read Napolitano’s sweeping policy change.

But just in case you’re wondering what the definition of a “Domestic Partner” is, here is the proposed definition (located on page 4):

“Domestic partner” means a person of the same or opposite gender who:
a. Shares the employee’s or retiree’s permanent residence;
b. Has resided with the employee or retiree continuously for at least the past 12 consecutive months and is expected to continue to reside with the employee or retiree indefinitely as evidenced by an affidavit filed at time of enrollment;
c. Has not signed a declaration or affidavit of domestic partnership with any other person and has not had another domestic partner within the last 12 months;
d. Does not have any other domestic partner, spouse, or spousal equivalent of the same or opposite sex;
e. Is not currently legally married to anyone or legally separated from anyone else;
f. Is not a blood relative any closer than would prohibit marriage;
g. Is mentally competent to consent to contract when the domestic partnership began;
h. Is not acting under fraud or duress;
i. Is at least 18 years of age; and
j. Is financially interdependent with the employee or retiree in at least three of the following ways:
i. Joint mortgage, joint property tax identification, or joint tenancy on a residential lease;
ii. Holding one or more credit or bank accounts jointly, such as a checking account, in both names;
iii. Joint liabilities;
iv. Joint ownership of significant property (e.g., vehicle, real estate, boat);
v. Naming the partner as beneficiary on the employee’s life insurance, under the employee’s will, or employee’s retirement annuities and being named by the partner as beneficiary of the partner’s life insurance, under the partner’s will, or the partner’s retirement annuities; and,
vi. Each agreeing in writing to assume financial responsibility for the welfare of the other (i.e., durable power of attorney); or
vii. Other proof of financial interdependence as approved by the Director.

 


Comments

  1. Frank,

    No Frank, you don’t believe in small government, you believe in government with no morals whatsoever. Don’t equate government following both tradition and for that matter judeo christian teachings in not allowing gays to marry as being big government. It has nothing to do with it. Making choices does not enlarge government. If we are in the business of recognizing marriage, in your words, equally. Would it then follow that we accept polygamy or perhaps we should, in the name of your vision of small government, also allow people to marry their sisters and brothers. After all, in your view, we have to recognize it equally. Right??

  2. Everyone has their opinion, but I am in a domestic partnership for right now. I live (in sin, for the religious right) with my boyfriend and his children. We are not a norman rockwell family, but it works for us. He is a city employee and I am able to access healthcare thru the domestic partnership allowed here in Nevada. We have chose not to get married, but it does not mean that our committment to each other, or our love for one another should be questioned just because I never signed a piece of paper. Conservatives should also be allowed to take part in this program, at least those of us who don’t necessarily WANT to be married. But we still should have the same rights. So, as someone said above, this isnt just about homosexual couples, this is about straight couples too.

  3. Frank Soto says

    “No Frank, you don’t believe in small government, you believe in government with no morals whatsoever”

    Huh? I mean, sure, I guess I believe that the government is “amoral.”

    “It has nothing to do with it”

    You’re right. But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about GOVERNMENT BENEFITS attaching to the marriage. So, it ENLARGES government’s role when it can give benefits to some people, and not to others based on marriage. My personal preference is that marriage should not be controlled by the gov’t AT ALL (hence making gov’t smaller), but if you insist that marriage should be regulated (government regulation=larger government), then you should try to be a bit consistent (in other words, protect equal rights). You could just say, sure, government can regulate marriage, but there are no benefits to getting married, which would make the government set null. Let everyone get married, but no tax breaks, etc.

    “Would it then follow that we accept polygamy or perhaps we should, in the name of your vision of small government, also allow people to marry their sisters and brother”

    No Mark, try to follow. AGAIN: Government should have NO role in marriage. This would shrink gov’t. If you are going to allow some people govt recognition and give benefits thereby; there is a strong equal protection problem.

    Personally, I think that marrying your sister is morally reprehensible. Homosexual mariage is obviously a different debate: I don’t want a government full of politicians making moral choices for me. When it impacts my ‘natural rights’ then the gov’t steps in (read: Locke).

    We are obviously arguing in circles. Just flip the argument and see what you think: you can only get benefits if you are in a homosexual relationhip. The gov’t has started a new policy to promote diverse viewpoints, and it is doing this to promote my homosexuals in the government’s workforce. Permissible? If not, why not? I mean, they aren’t even letting gays get married in this system, just saying they are the only ones to get benefits.

  4. Frank,

    I can’t flip the argument, because I do believe there is a valid reason for the government to provide benefits to married couples. As a society we do want to encourage heterosexual marriage. Why? Because it leads to more kids and we believe that kids raised in a stable two parent family is a good thing. So government encourages marriage through policy decisions. Thus providing benefits to married couples does in fact serve an overarching policy goal for society.

  5. Frank Soto says

    you missed the point:

    NO marriage given. Just benefits ONLY for homosexuals, regardless of marital state. Is that permissible? The policy is that the state of AZ wants to attract more homosexuals b/c of statistics that show they generally commit less crime, have higher average wealth, etc.

  6. Sorry Val, but your relationship just isn’t the same or equal to a marriage. A marriage involves a deeper level of commitment. You might not think so, as I’m sure you’re deeply in love and feel as committed as you imagine you can feel, but for those of us who have been in both “relationships” and marriages, there is a difference.

    The fact remains that you can both check out of your relationship at the drop of a hat and, having that back door works for lots of folks. A real marriage doesn’t have a back door, so the commitment to making it work is stronger and the relationship endures better.

  7. John,

    I feel you are wrong on two counts:

    1. I disagree with your assertion a long-term relationship _necessarily_ does not involve the same level of commitment as a marriage. While I think you are correct in the general sense, one can find numerous counter-examples.

    Example – I know a committed gay couple who have been together, good times and bad, better or worse, for 20+ years. There is no reason to believe they won’t be for the rest of their days (both are 70+ now). I also am aware of a married couple who were friends, but got married largely so “she” could get in-state tuition.

    Which demonstrates the “deeper level of commitment”?

    2. Given the easy of gaining divorce, and the increasing number of marriages which end in divorce, this is hardly a high barrier to clear. It’s obvious a large number of couples in “traditional” marriages are opting to use the back door as well … the only difference for them is they have to undo an extra latch first.

  8. Frank,

    No, I didn’t miss the point. I know where you are trying to go with this. It doesn’t fly.

  9. Frank Soto says

    oh. I see your point now.

  10. Mark,

    How many children born to heterosexual couples don’t grow up in “stable two-parent” families?

    A lot.

    Also, some number of committed gay couples raise children in stable homes (unless you are going to claim it’s impossible for a gay couple to provide a stable home), and the children don’t so any greater incidence of mental problems, grade problems, etc., than children raised in a stable traditional home.

    I.e., it’s not the gender of the parents which counts, it’s the stability and “caringness” of the environment they provide.

  11. Sirocco,

    Yes, I am sure that gays can raise children in a stable home. But I would venture to guess that it’s probably a bit more difficult for them on the procreation front. It’s not an indictment of gays, it’s an acknowledgement that the likelihood of having children is enhanced when the couple is actually physically able to do so. So as a society we encourage heterosexual marriage for that reason.

  12. What an interesting and fascinating discussion.

  13. Well, when you see a thread with 60+ posts, you know it must be good (or about Laura Knaperek and Nathan Sproul!)

    Remarkably, none of these posts contain the greatest truth about the topic, which is surprising given the conservative nature of this blog.

    Homosexuality is unhealthy and immoral.

    It is a sexual deviancy and the last several decades have seen a sustained effort to normalize it by portraying it in our media and through other means so that we will all be numbed to it. Nevertheless, it remains an objectionable behavior to the majority of folks because it is wrong.

    Now I am all for hating the sin and loving the sinner, and I am fortunate that I have gotten to meet and speak with several former homosexuals who, whether through newfound faith and/or professional counseling, left that lifestyle and found their way into healthy, normal, heterosexual lifestyles, complete with spouses, kids, etc. Their words and warnings are worth considering because in everyone’s rush to look cool or not look judgmental, we are abdicating our responsibility to remind those who need it that what they are doing is wrong. We should be showing them and helping them to find their way back to the lives they should be leading.

    Doctors and scientists who have researched and written/spoken on the issue report that for the overwhelming number of folks who were or are still gay, the roots of their behavior are traced back to abuse of some sort. Trust issues, particularly with father figures, uncles, brothers, etc figure most prominently, for both male and female homosexuals. Comfort and safety is then sought where it would not normally be sought, and a lifestyle is entered into that more often than not fails to fulfill the person. Small wonder, since it is the wrong lifestyle.

    While you do hear of homosexuals who engage in long-term relationships, the actual statistics on the sexual practices of homosexuals is astounding. They average several times the numbers of sexual partners of heterosexuals and their relationships last a correspondingly smaller period of time. They bounce from partner to partner in search of fulfillment failing to realize that they are looking where it cannot be found.

    Where it gets interesting and crosses over into the political and social arena is that what most of these folks are looking for is loving acceptance. It is what was taken from them early in their lives. The abuse that they suffered made them feel unworthy and often made it impossible for them to have loving, trusting relationships. The resulting insecurity and need for acceptance is why so many in the gay community are so militant about demanding marriage, benefits and anything else that they can get that conveys normalcy and equality.

    In essence, trapped in a lifestyle that they themselves know, albeit subconsciously in many cases, is wrong, they crave the recognition and approval of society itself. That is why they spend so much to defeat marriage protection initiatives, etc. For those of us who are trying to pass those things, we are pushing an issue of importance to us. For those who oppose it, they are trying to validate not only a lifestyle, but their very lives themselves.

    That is a powerful motivator.

    No one should sit as God in judgment of others. But that does not mean that we are not allowed to make judgments at all. What would be the point of knowing right from wrong if we were unable or not allowed to share it and teach it to others. The key is to share it and teach it in a loving and forgiving way. The path away from the gay lifestyle is described as a long journey to forgiveness of self and loving of self. Do not do the sinner the disservice of telling them they aren’t sinning. Do not make it that much harder for them to find their way out of that lifestyle by subsidizing it, teaching it, encouraging it, pretending it is equal and healthy and normal as a heterosexual lifestyle. Just remember that hating the sin is a lot easier than loving the sinner, so you have to work that much harder on the loving part.

    If you want more information, check out a “Love Won Out” conference the next time one is in town. You can learn more at http://www.lovewonout.com/ and you can also visit websites for groups like Exodus (http://www.exodus.to/) that are helping to lead people back to the lives they want.

  14. Frank Soto says

    Hey Tim,

    Thank you for your long and thoughtful post. For the sake of argument, I concede your statement that “most scientists and doctors” have found the root of homosexuality is abuse, etc. Further, as I have noted above, I do believe in Scripture, and do belive that homosexual nature is a result of the fall.

    The issue we have been talking about (that is way off of the original point, thanks in large part to me :)) is whether the GOVERNMENT can decide whether you get married. Your post, doesn’t address the issue at all. If you want to say that homosexuals can’t get married because homosexual behavior is bad for you, etc., then I think you would have to be logically consistent and say that the government should outlaw homosexual relations COMPLETELY. Is there something about marriage that would make it more unhealthy?

    Ok, so the unhealthy recognition must lead us to a large government. What about the immoral part? Well, I can think of a lot of things that are immoral, and resulted from the fall–lying, drunkeness, Gluttony, laziness, pride, etc. Does the Government get to decide on these also? Why? Don’t you think that lying to everyone would surely result in an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle?

    x4mr: I can’t tell if your post is supposed to be sarcastic or truthful. You call it “interesting” and “fascinating” but then go on to make fun of the whole discussion, of which the comments on your blog reiterate, by being suprised that people would be ‘passionate’ about this.

  15. Mark,

    Love and commitment is about more than just procreation.

    Yes, we have an interest in future generations, but given the current population can you, or anyone else, really claim we are somehow failing in that regard?

    I have no problem whatsoever with encouraging heterosexual marriage. I don’t see any reason at all why such “encouragement” needs to come at the expense of other forms of commitment.

    Tim,

    Not going to address your full screed, but …

    1. Could you please provide some citations for your claim:

    “Doctors and scientists who have researched and written/spoken on the issue report that for the overwhelming number of folks who were or are still gay, the roots of their behavior are traced back to abuse of some sort.”

    I have no problem finding reputable studies which find gays abused as children are more likely to engage in abuse themselves as adults, but that is true of heterosexuals as well. I have been unable to find a study anywhere which claims an “overwhelming” number of gays were themselves abused as children.

    2. “While you do hear of homosexuals who engage in long-term relationships, the actual statistics on the sexual practices of homosexuals is astounding. … They bounce from partner to partner in search of fulfillment failing to realize that they are looking where it cannot be found.”

    You do realize the first sentence of this paragraph completely contradicts the end of the last sentence, right?

    Given the difficulties gays in our society face, and the stigma as well, it’s not surprising they have a harder time finding committed relationships. However, as you concede, it’s certainly achievable for them, even if it takes longer for some.

    Some, of course, never find fulfillment and end up in an endless series of meaningless relationships. That’s not unique to the homosexual community.

    3. “In essence, trapped in a lifestyle that they themselves know, albeit subconsciously in many cases, is wrong, they crave the recognition and approval of society itself. That is why they spend so much to defeat marriage protection initiatives, etc.”

    Perhaps …. just maybe … they’d like to have access to the same dignity and familial rights (such as, say, hospital visitation rights if a partner is critically ill) that heterosexual couples take for granted?

  16. Mark,

    Perhaps I’m not reading this right, but are you worried that gay benefits/partnerships/marriage are problematic because they might lead to some sort of downswing in procreation?

    Is the US (or the world, for that matter) in danger of running out people? Because the last I checked, humanity was acting out “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” but with DNA instead of brooms.

    If that really is a concern, you really should be more worried of straights like me who are actively pushing the “child-free” agenda.

  17. Just briefly, I’m not arguing for a role for government in much of anything. However, where there is one, it should be to promote what is best and healthiest. I consider marriage to be a religious institution first, so I’m not for government saying who can get married, etc. That said, with the attempts by the homosexual lobby to get judges to change the definition of marriage within the law itself, it then becomes important that we defend and protect marriage in the law itself, thus the various marriage amendments.

    For those of you who want lots of footnotes, sources, citations, etc., I have already provided links to groups that can give you all of that. On these blogs, lots of folks want to imply that your statements aren’t valid by requiring somebody’s thesis in support. I don’t have time for all of that just to participate in the conversation. But I did provide sources that will satisfy those of you who genuinely want to learn more about the issues.

    For those of you who are very involved, there really is no substitute for attending a Love Won Out conference itself. The scientific data combined with the personal testimony is a heck of a powerful combination.

  18. Tim S.,

    “On these blogs, lots of folks want to imply that your statements aren’t valid by requiring somebody’s thesis in support. I don’t have time for all of that just to participate in the conversation. But I did provide sources that will satisfy those of you who genuinely want to learn more about the issues.”

    That’s a cop out. You made a fairly strong statement, and it’s not unreasonable to ask for support. I actually spent some time (including digging through the link you provided to lovewonout) and couldn’t find something to support the statement.

    You made the assertion, it’s incumbent on you to support it.

    I’ll go a step further than just imply your claim isn’t valid. I’ll assert outright your statement:

    “Doctors and scientists who have researched and written/spoken on the issue report that for the overwhelming number of folks who were or are still gay, the roots of their behavior are traced back to abuse of some sort.”

    Is out-and-out false. Feel free to show I am wrong by citing as many peer-reviewed studies as you can find.

    I’ve said before (in various places) I am not tethered to the term “marriage” either way. If some form of civil designation with all the same legal rights that marriage has is provided, I’m ok with it (although is does smack a little of “separate but equal”).

  19. Tim S.,

    As a follow-up, and as just one of several examples I could cite, our own government’s Dept. of Veteran Affairs thinks you are making facts up as well:

    What impact does gender socialization have upon men who have been sexually assaulted?

    Because of ignorance and myths about sexual abuse, men sometimes fear that the sexual assault by another man will cause them to become gay. This belief is false. Sexual assault does not cause someone to have a particular sexual orientation. (emphasis mine).

    This guy, a leading researcher on dealing with men who were sexually abused, also disagrees with you. (Select the lilnk on the left side labeled “Myths about Boyhood Sexual Victimization”). He has also written several books and articles addressing the issue, apparently, but unfortunately I can’t find any copies freely available on the web to point you to.

  20. Thanks for the post Tim. We really hadn’t dealt with the points you were raising. Governor Nappy will happily promote homosexuality as being equal in every way to heterosexuality because she’s gonna want their money and votes in 2010. But no, they’re not equal and the distinctions you point out are worth remembering.

  21. John,

    Of course they aren’t “equal in every way” … the question is why should the differences merit differences in legal standing?

  22. What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

    Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2k7xXxdUJ0

Leave a Reply