Skyler the Weird
Countryboy JJ
Rick Barton
Wiley Coyote
BooneCountyGirl
James Edges Driggs, Pushes To Scrap County Employee Benefits For Same-Sex Couples
Bill James held off an aggressive challenge from Ed Driggs to win the GOP primary for the District 6 seat on the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, with the eight-term incumbent commissioner capturing nearly 52 percent of the vote.
But less than eight hours after taking the win in the heavily Republican district, James’ attention wasn’t focused on his General Election opponent, Democrat Connie Green-Johnson, but on how the results of Tuesday night’s Amendment One vote would impact Mecklenburg County employee policy.
The constitutional amendment, which makes marriage between a man and a woman the “only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” in North Carolina, easily won approval at the polls with a 61 percent margin.
In that light, James is already pushing Mecklenburg to scrap its policy that provides domestic partner health insurance benefits to employees in same-sex relationships. The county has been offering same-sex benefits to employees since commissioners approved the policy in 2009.
James fired off the following email to County Manager Harry Jones and county legal staff early Wednesday morning:
Since Amendment One has passed when will we get a memo or something that outlines what changes we need to make to our health plan to be in compliance? I recall when the Democrats on the Commission forced the issue and added these benefits for homosexuals that a number of legal experts said it was illegal then – including the City attorney. Now that Amendment one has passed it obviously is illegal to offer this benefit as there is now only one ‘domestic legal union’ recognized in the state.
Prior to the vote most scholars (left and right) said that Amendment One would eliminate local faux ‘marriage’ benefits for homosexual employees. I would cite them but you know them all too well.
Still, I would like to know when the Board can expect information on the changes Amendment One wrought (or are we going to break the law and spend scarce resources on litigation we will likely loose)?
No reply yet from Jones, or any of James’ commission colleagues, but this one should be worth watching.
UPDATE: Jones informs that the county’s “legal and human resources staffs are evaluating the Amendment, as well our policy, to determine what, if any, potential impact the Amendment will have on Mecklenburg County. As soon as we complete our evaluation we will brief the board at a future meeting on our findings, conclusions, and policy options” available to commissioners.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=9735
Wha happened to the easy to find meckboe.org election results page? Down the memory hole too?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hey Jeff! Results are still linked on the front page of their site. Here is the official results page:
Click Here
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks. I’d be terrified that 15K adults in the 9th CD wanted to send Andy Dulin/Ed Peacock to Congress.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I’m sure I’d have been reprimanded for calling one or the other of them ‘pat mumford’ accidentally if they had won.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Peacock says he took out a $250,000 loan against his house for this campaign- If I was Edwin I would have bought racehorses with the $250,000. Andy- Andy thought more folks were into him, then they really were. Andy has a good scam going on city council, he can work that for some back door real estate commsions. Andy has a hard time figuring out the differnece between laughing at and laughing with.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
OUCH. That hurts…but it begs the question – who would invest a quarter million dollars to win a job that pays much much less than that? HMMM…
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
We all know that with all the perks and campaign ‘contributions’ you get from being an incumbant congressman in a safe district, the pay is way more than $250k. But hey, with QE3 or QE4 we’ll all be Weimar Millionaires.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The hatred of the bigots knows no bounds. So sad. Our Founding Gathers and Jesus Christ are weeping. You people make my physically ill.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
60 
7
Vile subhuman slime. He is completely anti-human
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
7
Bigots? What bigots? It passed because African Americans voted for it in large numbers and they CANNOT be bigots.
Like or Dislike:
16 
41
Oh my! I can See the Loving Left is out in full force today. Face it. The Haters can’t blame this on the Mormons like they did Prop 8. If African Americans and Latinos had voted against the Amendment in the same numbers they voted for Democrats, it would have lost.
Like or Dislike:
12 
19
ANYONE can be a bigot.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
1
Glad someone so intelligent was just elected…”scarce resources on litigation we will likely loose”. It is “lose” you uneducated, ignorant bigot.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
7
Such Hate. Too bad the guy you wanted Lossed. But then you probably weren’t registered to Vote in his Primary.
Like or Dislike:
4 
15
The word is *lost*. Idiot.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
2
LOL This troll was hoping to trap some nice squisy hobbit haters by intentionally typing ‘lossed’ to play off of BJ’s bad spell checker. Thank you Precious. Yummy.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Folks, this is the future of the republican party. *points and laughs*
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
[...] Amendment One and Mecklenburg County employee benefits | Pundit House. Share And Enjoy:TwitterFacebookEmailPrintDiggLinkedInRedditStumbleUponTumblrPinterestLike [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
Time to cancel employee benefits for heterosexual unmarried couples. Maybe for the children of single parents, too?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
2
“loose” … Obviously, a very highly intelligent guy.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Shouldn’t they outlaw health insurance for dependents too, then? No one is married to their own child, so if there any legal domestic relationship there?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Either “any dependent” can get benefits, including ones from relationships without marriage, or only dependents in marriages can get benefits.
Excluding only some dependents outside of marriages, but not others, would be the kind of discrimination that will not stand up in court. The text of amendment one is quite clear – the only partnership recognized by the state is marriage between a man and a woman.
Everybody else is out of luck. I wonder how many of the people who voted for the amendment will lose their own benefits, because they did not read what they were voting for?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Actually not very many of those who voted for the amendment will lose benefits because this situation doesn’t actually apply to very many people to start with. The angst expressed here, along with the vituperativeness which, I might add, is so often assigned to the right but is obviously coming from the left, is anger and the whining of those who didn’t get their way. And is benefits the only thing we’re concerned with here????
No, it is the way we view our society. Some, the majority of voters, like the idea of man/woman relationships to be the norm. Others, the minority, are of the “If it feels good do it” mentality. Morality is the issue and the change in morality is the cause of the angst. If those seeking ‘equal rights’ had not been so bent on using the government to gain what they seek, and make no mistake, the aggitating and lawsuits etc were all to obtain the force of government in this seeking, then those opposing their seeking would not have used the government to stop it.
So the whiners are on the receiving end of the methods they used to start with and my, such crying we don’t often see. Don’t like their own medicine do they?
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
“If those seeking ‘equal rights’ had not been so bent on using the government to gain what they seek … the aggitating and lawsuits etc were all to obtain the force of government in this seeking, then those opposing their seeking would not have used the government to stop it.”
How else would you expect anyone to obtain legal rights except through the government? Do you not realize that legal rights are granted by the government? You used a lot of big words, but it seems everything you say either makes no sense or is completely lacking any coherent logic.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Dear Ms. Ratcoon,
“Legal rights are granted by the government”. No my friend, rights are taken away by the government. And the argument is not about logic on either side, it is an emotional situation reflected in the anger of those who were on the losing side. Further, the fact you, and others, don’t like what I said doesn’t change the truth of it.
As example: Aggitating for benefits to same sex couples is the seeking of an outside force, government, to make others pay for their benefit, but those who pay suffer a lose, in effect lose their right to their own work. 2nd example. The amendment was an effort to use government to restrict the ability of some people to live and be accepted as they wished.
In general, the legal rights you refer to are most likely restrictions and burdens on one group so another benefits. They are not rights, they are government mandated entitlements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow. Why don’t we just on and rip up the constitution now? So much for the pursuit of liberty and happiness .. oh yeah that is only for the heterosexuals. We are the only ones who deserve it. I hope this fails. How is this hurting you anyway? Just some self righteous piety you want to inflict on others to make you feel good.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
3
I voted against this so do not blame all minorities yes some minorities voted but only 35% of registered voters weighed in as the primaries as a rule have lower turnout. And those are usually older voters with certain backgrounds. Please make informed comments rather then psuedo-race bashing to get attention. Thanks
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I feel sorry for people that are so miserable they have to use a fictitious book of fairy tales to control the lives of others. At a time when our economy is bad and jobs are scarce we should be working together for man kind not trying to tear others down and strip them of their civil rights. Pathetic
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Bill James, you’re doing an awesome job showing your ignorance, as well as how much of a stupid person you are. I’m sure somewhere in that hole you call an office there’s a dictionary under that pile of books and papers you have in there somewhere. LEARN HOW TO SPELL!! THERE’S ONLY 1 “O” IN THE WORD “LOSE”, YOU STUPID IDIOT!!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Your side lossed get over it. Go sign the petition to move the DNC from Charlotte. That’ll show em.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I love Bill James! He has conviction whether you like it or not. Truly a rare man in today’s world.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
Okay, I am really torn on this subject. I believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a women hands down, however I do not agree that anybody, married, GLBT, black or white, children or no children, should get special benifits or treatment in any situation and I think that is what the real issue is here. Everybody needs equal opportunity. I think the only way to do that, is to make benefits, perks, eligibility etc, he same across the board in ALL situations. Please don’t ask me to vote to redefine marriage, because I just can’t do it! If the vote would have been to equalize all benefits, taxes etc, regardless of marriage status, income status, race etc…my vote would have been yes! If we keep expanding who we see as “married”, “black or white”, “low income or rich” it will never end! We need to see everyone the same and cut applications in half by not even asking those questions because it shouldn’t matter! Attempting to redefine marriage is not the best way to go about creating equality, it’s to get the government to stop judging who it sees as equal and who it doesn’t. It’s not their business!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Your instincts are correct. The only solution is to get government out of the business of defining and licensing marriage at all, and return it to the churches. Marriage is an institution of God, and should not be entangled in Man’s law, caught up tax advantages and private contract law. Those things should be entirely separate.
Once that’s done, no church could ever be made to perform a marriage ceremony of which it did not approve, and everyone would be equal before the law.
Simple and biblical. Unfortunately, I won’t hold my breath.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
You are completely ignorant of human history. The Romans already had completely secular marriage laws. And some form of common law marriage was the norm for them. The Catholic Church kept those laws for many centuries almost unchanged. It didn’t become common for priests to perform marriages until the 12th century. A priest wasn’t required to perform a marriage until the 13th century. It didn’t become a sacrament until the 16th century. And that was in direct response to Martin Luther, who saw marriage as a worldly thing and wanted the church to get out of it. Ironically, the highly theocratic Puritans who settled America brought that kind of thinking to their colonies. They were in favor of civil marriage. In Europe, civil marriage started after the French Revolution and with Napoleon who spread French law through much of continental Europe. From there it spread to South America and some other parts of the world.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The Romans did have same sex marriage but as Juvenal told the nobleman Gracchus no matter how many times he whipped his ‘bride’ in the Lupercalia (a roman fertility festival) they’d never produce a child.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not same sex marriage is appropriate, but I know that we can all agree that no matter what your choice of union is, you should not be discriminated for or against because of it. I would not expect you to vote that marriage should be between only a man and a women, because that is not what you believe, just as I should not have to vote in favor of same sex marriage…why, because same sex unions should be treated just the same as singles, and married to begin with. There should be no discrimination and then we would not have to vote and try to force each others view points because it wouldn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0