I worked for Hennepin County in the
1980's when the first MN gay rights
ordinance was passed.
It specifically EXCLUDED domestic
partner benefits as part of the
negotiations to get the bill passed.
As soon it was passed the
Minneapolis Civil Right department
"decreed" that the law included gay
domestic partnership benefits. My
AFSME Council 5 2822 union was
negotiating a new contract. The
wanted to include a very loosely
defined domestic partners benefit in
the contract if it passed legal
muster. ......... Everyone in the
office wanted to know if this is
included financial co-dependence.
Our co-worker union rep was a stand
-up guy (woman) who demanded an
answer. We were told that we would
be subject to "sexual harassment
complaints" if we persisted. It
turned out that it did have this
"suicide by pen" provision. Seems
the City of Minneapolis had eight-
hundred people interested in
domestic partner benefits. When
informed that financial co-
dependence was included 9o0% lost
interest. .......... There was a
group that wanted to legally
challenge the Minneapolis ruling but
they needed a Minneapolis property
owner to file a legal challenge. I
contacted the group. They told me
that they were looking for a retired
homeowner and warned me that I could
encounter substantial workplace
problems if I was the face of the
lawsuit. They got several retiree
Minneapolis homeowners and one was
fronted for the legal challenge.
...... The legal challenge went
first to the MN Court of Appeals and
then by the MN Supreme Court which
basically rejected the domestic
partners interpretation and told the
defendants to "learn how to read".
..... I'm now retired so they can't
hurt me but some of these "gay
advocates" are willing to use "the
ends justify the means" tactics. I
followed the case and cannot recall
any gay group coming forward saying
"this is not what we agree to when
the MN gay rights law was passed".
........ Since then no significant
gay rights legislation has passed in
Minnesota. Go figure! I'll cross
post at my http://fifthestate.net in
case the Star Tribune censors
consider this an "inconvenient
truth".
