One day after New Mexico Attorney General Gary King released an opinion that same-sex marriages performed elsewhere would be recognized in New Mexico, the new Republican governor, Susana Martinez, said she is reviewing whether to eliminate domestic partner benefits for state employees. Both same-sex and different-sex couples receive those benefits, as a result of an executive order signed by Governor Bill Richardson in 2003.
Equality New Mexico says 2300 employees get those benefits, although that number sounds very high to me. When the Arizona legislature eliminated domestic partner benefits for its state employees (also both same-sex and different-sex), it affected about 800 people, and Arizona's population is so much larger than New Mexico's that I expect its state workforce is also much larger.
The Arizona legislation met with an immediate court challenge by Lambda Legal, but only on behalf of the same-sex state employees, something I criticized in this post. Lambda obtained a injunction at the District Court level that has kept the benefits in place, but the state appealed and oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 14.
No newspaper coverage I've seen has linked Martinez's announcement to the release of the AG opinion, but I read it as escalating her opposition to gay rights in the state.
2 comments:
Tell me why this isn't a case of liberal gays and lesbians just seeking easy government hand-outs?
The term Moocher kind of comes to mind.
Good for Gov. Martinez for seeking to find ways of cutting off people who are sucking off the government tit.
Eric,
I would not say that these gay and lesbian individuals are in any way being "Moochers" of the state.
Look at it this way. When Domestic Partnership benefits are mentioned, its not in the context of necessarily "getting a special something from the government". Instead, these benefits allow gay and lesbian employees of the state government to put their partners on their insurance etc. Many private organizations and businesses allow this benefit, why should the state not?
Post a Comment