Orange Approves Benefits for Employee Partners

Bit of a no-brainer, really. The Orange County Commissioners voted last week to extend benefits to domestic parters of County employees. According to the Chapel Hill Herald, Commissioner Alice Gordon says they had wanted to do it before but couldn't afford it. The extra charge from the insurance company is gone, so they did it. It's nice to see the trickle-down effect of progressive social policies at big corporations.

Durham, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro already do it, although Durham only offers the benefit to same-sex couples. What about straight cohabitators? Apparently less than 1% of the employees in these municipalities use the domestic partner benefit. The social impact on the community of doing this is an added value. This is an inexpensive way to do something good.

If you missed this story in the paper don't feel bad. In the last three days there was only one article in the Chapel Hill Herald about this, and almost a dozen about the school merger. (Which isn't even a proposal yet.) And I couldn't find it all in the Chapel Hill News, Daily Tarheel, or the N&O. I guess it really was a no-brainer...



The reason there's a lot more coverage of the school board merger plans than of the new Domestic Partner benefits that there might possibly be more than 7 people affected by the former. DP benefits are so 17th November.

Actually, the real question under Goodridge going to be whether it would be constitutional for States to impose a mandatory two date minimum (the so-called "U-Haul ammendments").

your pain is delicious!

Simon, what's Goodridge?

It's the Mass marriage decision. Here's a link to the slip opinion:

When Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Charles Evans Hughes said, "The Constitution of the United States is whatever the judges say it is," many thought he should have been impeached. Many others thought his statement an expression of verbal excess that shouldn't be taken too seriously. After all, at the time, courts were sufficiently self-restrained so as not to shock the nation's sensibilities. Too, people were more educated about our system of government and understood the Constitution better. After more than one hundred years of 'progressive' education we are no longer able to fend off the utterances of fools who insist we must obey a court's rulings simply because the law is whatever the judges say it is. That is not true. The Founders of our country didn't think that was the system they agreed to be governed by and the people have never voted through their elected representatives to change that. So, whence comes this over-awed reverence for the dictates of our would-be philosopher kings?

I can see a legitmate discussion about extending benefits to same sex partners. However, it seems to me that heterosexual couples have a legitmate, state sanctioned method to declare their commitment to each other and their willingness to take responsibility for each other and that is marriage. If someone doesn't want to get married for whatever reason, fine, but don't expect to have all the same rights and privileges as those who do. If the objection to marriage is religious, then have a civil ceremony, if the objection is the responsibilities, then understand that you don't get privileges without assuming responsibilities. I simply do not understand the "heterosexual domestic partner" issue, but I will be happy to listen to anyone who can explain it to me.


You are not very tolerant or open-minded!



Yeah Ruby,

Where is your passion for DIVERSITY of opinion?

What makes you think diversity of opinion is not welcome on this site? It doesn't take a very close reading of any of the threads to realize that there is a great deal of diversity of opinion among the frequent posters. (Anonymous posters and named posters alike). What Ruby has told you, in at least 2 threads by my count, is that your meanness, your intolerance, your hate posts, that's what's not welcome here. The opinions you've expressed on this site, once distilled from the venom that accompanies them, could be interesting, I'm sure. I'm sure though, many readers like me, have long ago lost the necessary patience to do the required distillation. In fact, it appears that a great number of your more vitriolic posts have remained on the site despite what you call “Ruby's efforts to censor you.”


I'm not sure it's appropriate to extend benefits to straight cohabitators. After all, straight folk have the option of marriage (in the legal sense). Gay folk don't, which is the reason the extension of benefits is needed in the first place.

I see your point, Rickie. I could argue that a lot of heterosexual couples have good reasons to reject the institution of marriage while still wanting to build a loving household/family together. Personally, I think they should go ahead and get that little piece of paper from the goverment and simply redefine what marriage means for themselves.

PS: Damion, I couldn't be more thrilled that you now have your own blog. Your outrage confuses me, though. Who ever told you this was a "free speech zone?" It's more like a public conversation I am hosting in my living room. Of course, if you behaved like this in my house, I would have thrown you out long ago.

same sex benefits are public endorsed SIN!



Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.


Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.