Pflugerville ISD authorizes domestic partner benefits
The school board voted 5-1 to approve the measure, making Pflugerville the first district in the state to offer such benefits.
As many readers are no doubt aware, state senator Dan Patrick has asked attorney general Abbott to rule on whether domestic partner benefits are legal under the state’s 2005 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear two cases involving the constitutionality of same-sex marriage will surely have an impact on Abbott’s decision. The most likely result is that this and other issues relating to same-sex marriage will be put on the back burner until the high Court has made a ruling on constitutionality of DOMA (and other issues involving the right of states to define marriage). In any event, I doubt that Senator Patrick will get the answer he wants.
Tagged: dan patrick, DOMA, greg abbott
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name says:
I wouldn’t be so sure of that, Paul. Social conservatives rarely miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity to do the enlightened thing.
Reply »
ANON Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:29 am
Mustache, methinks thou art correct.
Reply »
Don Q says:
Once again, the country moves in one direction, the Texas Legislature in the other.
Reply »
vietvet3 says:
A humanitarian and visionary decision. Despite what some say, this is a another step toward equal opportunity under the law. Homosexuality is not mentioned, nor is marriage. This is also mainly a business decision to help retain good teachers.
Reply »
R. says:
Two things:
1) Good on Pflugerville.
2) I went back to the videotape and found that the Warren Chisum (who was the author of HJR 6) specifically said during floor debate on the constitutional amendment that it would not ban cities from providing domestic partner benefits to city employees. Sylvester Turner was asking him about the scope of the amendment and whether it would affect domestic partner benefits. Here’s what Rep. Chisum said (on the video around 24:50) :
“It does not change what a city might do. It just says that they won’t recognize anything that creates the same legal status identical to or similar to marriage. It does not stop them from providing health benefits to same-sex partners. It is not intended to do that.”
http://www.house.state.tx.us/fx/av/chamber79/042505b.ram
Reply »
Just Another Joe Reply:
December 15th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
That’s some impressive research, R. Seriously. Paul, take note….or hire this person to fact check your work. Either way works.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
I don’t regard the writing of this blog to be a matter of concern that someone else might know more than I do about a subject. I’m not in competition with readers. R’s discussion of what Mr. Chisum said is very enlightening and I appreciate what he has to say.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Whoa, R, impressive work!
Reply »
just a guy Reply:
December 15th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Wow, impressive research!
I’ve heard a lot of ‘digs’ on Pflugerville since living in Austin. It is joked about being the lamest of lame suburbs here. Now what town is leading the way for being inclusive rather than exclusive?
I’m shopping around for a suburb to move to from downtown Austin and now I’m going to check out some homes in Pflugerville. I never even considered living there until now. I do have a few friends out there and they like it.
To those who oppose treating all employees as equals: Nobody ever complained about the benefits I received when I answered calls as a police officer to protect them and their families. Nobody ever asked if I was gay or straight when I was working as a nurse and caring for their loved one. Nobody had a problem when I parented a teenage foster kid with behavioral and legal issues and nobody else would care enough. Kids weren’t born with the urge to hate each other because of their differences.
Priority is to give the kids in the district the best education possible and to do that in a safe environment. Pflugerville is going to attract the best of the best to join the great employees that it already has working for the city there. I can’t wait to see how this impacts the community there!
Reply »
Randy Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Oh please, nobody ever asked me if I was straight either, when I was seeing them in the ER. Or asked if I was straight when any of the 38 foster kids came through me home. Get off your high horse. There are far more people doing good for the community.
Reply »
BaylorHeel says:
So that’s what one representative thought. What about the other members of the Legislature and the millions of Texans that voted on the amendment?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 15th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
While we’re saying “Good on Plugerville,” I might add “Good on Mr. Chisum” too.
Reply »
Anonymoose Reply:
December 15th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
What about them? I think they need to come on into the 21st century. Or at least the 20th century.
Reply »
ANON Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:31 am
The millions of Texans that voted on this need to wake up and realize this is not 1880.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:30 am
Actually, more like 1,723,782 (SOS site) out of a population of 22.9 million (Census 2005 estimate). I wouldn’t want to have to feed 1.7 million people, but it’s hardly a mandate to deprive gay people of their civil rights.
We (on both sides of the issues) need to quit acting like a particular vote or election expresses the wishes of ALL Texans. In a democracy, a majority of those who vote decide the question; that does not mean they’re right.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Funny how some folks scream for “original intent” and “what did the founders say” but do not want to accept what the AUTHOR had to say about health benefits under HIS constitutional amendment. Perhaps an example of I beleive in original intent when it is the same as my intent….
Reply »
Brian D. Sweany says:
@Just Another Joe: That is a smart point, but it doesn’t change the fact that Senator Patrick has filed a brief with the AG’s office. Perhaps he should review the exchange between Reps. Chisum and Turner.
Reply »
Pat says:
You can expect Abbott to do whatever most furthers his chances of becoming Governor. Accordingly, in order to score a victory with the far right on a hot social issue while simultaneously start another battle against the Feds, he’s going to issue an opinion banning Pflugerville’s move.
Reply »
paulburka says:
He may well do that. But the Supreme Court is going to have a say, and if it knocks down DOMA, then Abbott is going to have to bend to precedent.
Reply »
BaylorHeel says:
It’s just one representative’s statement about what he thinks. Legislative history of this type is inherently unreliable and courts give it little weight, as we learned in the Entergy fight a few years back.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 16th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
It makes a difference if the statement was made by the author on the floor of the house during debate on the measure before the vote, if the phrase “recognize any legal status … similar to marriage” can be considered ambiguous. It’s not a slam dunk argument but it means more than a statement by the author after the vote saying “this is what I really meant.”
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 16th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
The Entergy case specifically addressed “post hoc” “after the fact” statements of intent. Those types of statements are indeed given very little weight but that’s not the type of statement R’s research has apparently unearthed.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Legislative history is frequently ambiguous, but statements by the author of his explicit legislative intent, given during debate on the piece of legislation, usually have significant weight, even in Greg Abbott’s world.
Reply »
emptyk says:
Senator Patrick and the large proportion of Texas Republicans love local control until they hate the outcome.
Patrick and his fearful followers love the US Constitution except for the parts that they disagree with.
Patrick and his followers want the government off their backs except when they have the power of government to impose their standards on everybody else and they want those standards policed with the force of law.
There will always be shallow, self-important thugs like Senator Patrick who bubble up in a democracy. They are not always in control, as they now are in Texas.
Reply »
ANON Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:32 am
Well said, and true. The bullies on the right see what is coming.
Reply »
Intent says:
But in AG opinions, legislative intent has been used pretty consistently.
I don’t think Abbott is in any rush. If he rules against districts, he opposes local control.
If he rules for districts, he opposes the morality police, an unforgivable sin.
He will wait and then he will issue an opinion so nuanced that it doesn’t take a real stand.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:39 am
You mean he will do an old “duck” thereby living up to the nickname I gave him some years ago “Quack-Quack” Abbott. His most recent “duck” was on the conditions to hand over state money to the private FI race promoters. Combs either did it correctly or she didn’t…but Quack-Quack ducked that one…I wonder if he had good seats for the race.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
The safety of children? Not important
The education of children? Not important
Domestic partner benefits? Ding! Ding! Ding!
Reply »
Ron Reply:
December 16th, 2012 at 11:04 am
I think all of is care about the safety and education of our children. Some don’t want to pay for it, though.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
December 16th, 2012 at 11:16 am
Don’t feed the prole, Ron. I mean, don’t feed the troll.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 16th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
just demonstrating how out of touch the liberals are.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
just demonstrating how out of touch
the liberals areI am.fixed it for you
Reply »
City Slicker says:
God Bless local control! Does Danny Goeb agree?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 16th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
I’m fairly sure most conservatives agree our childern’s safety should take priority over domestic partner benefits. I wish dems agreed.
Reply »
ANON Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:33 am
I’m fairly sure that Texas conservatives have no idea about children. Their safety, education or future. Their track record is a pretty solid indication.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Even Ronald Reagan opposed bans on homosexuals in the classroom….guess that makes him a godless liberal.
Reply »
Sprio Eagleton Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:11 am
What is it with the name Dan Patrick? The sports announcer Dan Patrick also changed his name from something else to Dan Patrick.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:54 am
Two first names maybe?
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:02 am
If you’re a face or voice in media and showbiz world you probably want a shorter, catchy and familiar name. They often choose names that best fit the persona they try to project.
It’s not at all unusual for these same people to choose a name that neither implies nor gives clues as to their ethnicity: Woody Allen, Jon Stewart, Freddie Mercury, George Michael, John Denver…the list goes on and on.
Reply »
WURSPH says:
If that were true of our Dan Patrick, he would have chosen the name Looney Tunes….
Reply »
Anonymous says:
You do know that no tax dollars go to these partner benifits. The employee must pay for it. I think this is a good thing all the way around.
Reply »