Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor 12/02/08

Domestic partnerbenefits targeted

The wording of Amendment 2 sought to define marriage as “the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” The Yes on 2 leaders promised they were only trying to protect marriage and no one would risk losing health benefits. The No on 2 leaders said domestic partner benefits would be at risk if Amendment 2 passed. The Yes on 2 people said this statement was a scare tactic. The Nov. 21 St. Petersburg Times reports David Caton of the Florida Family Association is seeking to block domestic partner benefits to Hillsborough County employees. Mr. Caton felt passage of Amendment 2 means he has to take this action. So, who turns out to be the group you can trust? The Yes 2 people who said they were not attacking domestic partner benefits but now are attacking these same benefits, or the No on 2 people who warned you it could happen? Counties and cities will face expensive legal battles to retain domestic partner benefits for their employees as Florida Family Association and others seek to repeal these benefits at a time when many cities and counties are facing strained budgets.



Death a big loss


Fighting terrorism



No spread wealth

  Comments