Finally, something I don’t have to hate Greg Fischer for:
How bout them apples, gay-haters? At this very moment, Greg Fischer is signing an executive order extending equal health benefits to all 5,500 Metro Government employees (that includes unmarried heterosexual couples).
He finally got something majorly right.
Here’s Fischer’s email sent to Metro Government employees yesterday:
I am pleased to announce that, starting July 1, 2012, Metro Government will extend domestic partner benefits to city employees. Louisville is a growing, diverse, 21st Century city. If we are to attract the best and brightest talent to government, we must have benefits equal to or better than the private sector. Most Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits as do many local organizations and companies, from Brown-Forman to the University of Louisville. This is a matter of fairness, and it’s the right thing to do.
Enclosed you will find details of how the benefits will work. If you have questions, please contact Human Resources.
“This is a historic moment,” said Fairness Campaign Director Chris Hartman. “Mayor Fischer’s move will further secure Louisville and Kentucky’s place in American history as a Southern civil rights leader.”
Historic moment, indeed. Even if it’s buried in what is essentially a Friday news dump.
Greg Fischer may not exactly be a civil rights leader but this city certainly is. This is why Louisville can have nice things and sometimes Greg Fischer is a part of it.
UPDATE — And just like that, Tina Ward-Pugh sprinkled the glitter and Greg Fischer swished us into the 20th Century (yes, 20th):
Here’s what the order says:
WHEREAS, Louisville is a thriving, diverse 21st Century City;
And WHEREAS, if Louisville Metro Government is to attract the best and brightest talent to government, it must offer benefits equal to or better than the private sector;
And WHEREAS, most Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits as do many local organizations and companies, from Brown-Forman to the University of Louisville;
And WHEREAS, this is a matter of fairness, and it’s the right thing to do.
I, Mayor Greg Fischer, hereby order the city Human Resources Department to extend Domestic Partner Benefits to all city employees effective July 1, 2012.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Eileen // Jul 15, 2011 at 10:55 am
He hasn’t gotten it right yet. You know this order doesn’t take effect till July 1, 2012, right? Which means there’s a year for court challenges, and that the real test of whether this mayor is committed to extending benefits to domestic partners is in how vigorously he defends the order against any court challenges. As it stands, he’s getting a whole lot of praise for something that is–at the moment–largely symbolic. Just like he got a whole lot of praise for promising to reform LMAS. If he had a record of acting with integrity and doing what he promised, the praise would be warranted, because we could count on him to act on his stated intentions. This mayor doesn’t have such a record. He takes the credit for the promise and doesn’t follow through. So I will give that full credit when I see the benefits go into effect, not for a signature that is not yet backed by any real action.
2 Amy R // Jul 15, 2011 at 11:13 am
I think the fact that he has taken a stance on it and is signing it is more than any other politician in Louisville has done. Eileen, remember, this is Kentucky……
3 jake // Jul 15, 2011 at 11:47 am
I think it’d be pretty tough to implement now, as the fiscal year has already begun, though not impossible.
It makes sense to provide time to make the switch.
4 Steve Magruder // Jul 15, 2011 at 12:16 pm
So why did Fischer wait until after the fiscal year had begun? He could have started this ball rolling much earlier in the year and have it implemented as of now.
Don’t get me wrong — this is a great development for Louisville and will attract great talent to our city.
5 jake // Jul 15, 2011 at 12:20 pm
It’s Greg Fischer we’re talking about.
We’re lucky he didn’t wait until the final day of his term.
6 Steve Magruder // Jul 15, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Indeed.
7 jake // Jul 15, 2011 at 12:30 pm
One thing is certain – Greg has never once budged on his support for equality in conversation with me – ever.
8 Eileen // Jul 15, 2011 at 2:39 pm
If it goes through, great. I am in full agreement with benefits for domestic partners. I just think that Fischer’s weasel-like behavior on LMAS is indicative of his character and a lack of integrity. I’m looking at this action in the context of everything I know about the mayor, and in that context, his signature all by itself doesn’t mean a whole lot. We’ll see how much dedication he brings to defending this order from any court challenges and making sure that domestic partners actually get those promised benefit.
Since a big plus for the mayor is that signing this order gets people back on his side and distracts from what he’s NOT getting done, I choose not to be distracted. I will send sincere praise and congratulations to the mayor IF domestic partners have benefits on July 1, 2012, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
For now, I’m focused on LMAS, the fact that his interim director is still basically blackmailing rescue groups into doing LMAS’ job instead of promoting adoptions and caring for animals, and the fact that there is no reform in sight.
Amy, I know it’s Kentucky, but c’mon, Louisville’s a WORLD CLASS CITY!!!
9 Louella Parsnips // Jul 15, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Yes, this is nice. But just as soon as newly wed straight couples have to wait 9 months and then produce documentation of joint co-mingling of funds to qualify for benefits, then everything will truly be fabulous.
Of course that would mean all you rich, greedy, stay-at-home soccer moms who married for money and not love will either have to give up the 3 martini lunches or start seriously renegotiating those pre-nups.
10 chico // Jul 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Just curious , what is the definetion ofDomestic partner?…I’f i’m gay and my live in is my domestic partner , when I break up with my current one, will the new one I move in be covered? Will I have to identify the domestic partner & and how many time can I change it?
If I’m straight , can I make my live in girlfriend my domestic partner, and change her out for a new domestic partner at will?
11 jake // Jul 15, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Louella: Greg Fischer doesn’t have the ability to make gay marriage legal in Kentucky.
12 GtownReader // Jul 15, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Just curious – could a relative or good friend qualify as “domestic partner?” Could my brother & I own a house together, have a joint bank account for house expenses? Or my mother & I? Or my dear friend with a terminal illness that can’t get affordable health care on his/her own? Is “domestic partner” open to any interpretation that meets the living arrangement/financial test?
–Or does the chief qualifier have to be, say, a signed affadavit (sp?) stating that I have a physical love/sexual relationship with the other party – who may not want to be “outed?”
Is there already a readily available loop hole inviting abuse?
13 Louella Parsnips // Jul 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Jake: Good point. In order to qualify for this benefit you must co-mingle your finances. Yet if something happened to your partner, it would be their family who would inherit his or her share of the checking account/mortgage/etc., and not you because domestic partnerships are not recognized in Kentucky. So you are really putting yourself in a seriously sticky financial situation if you do this.
14 jake // Jul 15, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Not true. You don’t have to have joint finances.
Just proof both contribute to a household. Like a joint lease, mortgage, LG&E bill, sworn statements or some such.
15 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Jul 16, 2011 at 10:12 pm
I have concerns about the domestic partner provisions in that joint leases, LG&E bills are common amongst roommates. The potential for fraud and abuse will be significant. That fact of the matter is that legalizing gay marriage or requiring a consummated a legal domestic partnership would eliminate the fraud issue.
I think the line between a domestic partner and girlfriend/boyfriend would be difficult to differentiate. There has to be some financial and legal barrier to dissolution there as a deterrent. You cannot just get out of a legal domestic partnership or a marriage without taking significant legal and financial efforts.
16 jake // Jul 17, 2011 at 12:39 am
No, it’s not difficult to differentiate. Thousands of companies are able to do so quite well.
Get over it, folks, it’s happening.
17 Steve Magruder // Jul 17, 2011 at 7:50 am
… a year from now, if no challenges succeed and the mayor’s office implements it as ordered.
Let’s hope this isn’t just a shiny object to distract.
18 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Jul 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm
If we just went ahead and allowed gay couples to marry like every other committed couple, then we would have to get over anything. I’m always amazed at the threat to religious groups by gay marriage.
If their issue is that it’s against their religion, so are many of the beliefs and actions of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc., but we don’t prohibit them from marrying.
What I’m over Jake is having to create contorted ambiguous laws to provide rights to a group, while still allowing politicians to proclaim that they really aren’t treating them the same for political purposes. Treat them both equally and drop the political veil.
Leave a Comment