*Exclusive* John Bolton audio at Miami University
John Bolton came to Miami University yesterday and spoke on a variety of foreign policy issues. His speech was excellent, and although he didn't comment much on the state of the United Nations, he did comment extensively on what he considers the largest threats to international peace and security - North Korea and Iran.
North Korea: The ambassador commented extensively on the futility of negotiating with the North Korean regime. Referring to the country as a "17 million person prison camp" it's important to remember that the only goals the regime has is to maintain its own power. North Korea will, as it has over and over again, stall and make deals that it immediately breaks in order to continue its nuclear weapons program. Every deal that is made provides the regime more time and money in order to maintain power. In order to solve the international crisis brewing Bolton urges us to use China's influence over North Korea and ultimately work towards regime change and reunification of the Korean peninsula. Listen to Bolton on North Korea here.
Iran: Bolton went on to discuss the second major threat to world peace as Iran. He reminded us that every pointless deal made with North Korea reminds the Mullahs in Tehran that the west can be bargained into inaction. He reminded us that there is no other way to interpret the nuclear program of the Iranians other than a program designed to create a nuclear weapon. This information is not only based on U.S. intelligence data, but public information available from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Further, Iran has been projecting power throughout the region and supporting international terrorism such as Hezbollah, and Hamas. Also, with the shenanigans involved with the kidnapping of the 15 British sailors Iran has tested the resolve of the west, the U.N., and the E.U. and found no real contest. Bolton urges the Iranians to follow the example of Muammar Qadhafi and Lybia who peacefully ended their nuclear program and in exchange dramatically increased the quality of life of the Lybian people. Lessening our dependence on oil and no longer allowing Iran to circumvent international law will be the first steps in reigning in this rogue nation. Listen to Bolton on Iran here.
The ambassador then opened the floor up for questions, and a few focused on Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and Democrat Speaker of the House Pelosi. Bolton referred to Chavez as a "fruit loop" and "Castro without brains." He explained Chavez's attempt to buy a spot on the U.N. security council and buy his way into popularity in South America. Many nations beyond the U.S. see what an imminent threat Chavez's dictatorship is, and the ambassador reminded us that Chavez is unpredictable and a threat to the western hemisphere. Listen to Bolton on Chavez here.
Next, a question came up about Speaker Pelosi, and her recent trip to Syria. Bolton made no qualms about Pelosi's trip by saying "at best it's counterproductive" and reminding us that Pelosi was indeed trying to illegally establish alternative channels of foreign policy. Based on wide universal criticism of her actions, Bolton stated "I'll be surprised if she does much more of that." Listen to Bolton on Pelosi here.
John Bolton was articulate, knowledgeable, and direct when speaking about these international threats to world security. I can see clearly from this one experience that he was an asset to the U.S. and our mission within the U.N. It's therefore still unclear why and also unfortunate that the Democrats would rather play politics and refuse to ratify him within the post in which he was so exceedingly successful. The U.N is surely worse off without him.
Showing posts with label Miami University. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miami University. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Trouble for Domestic Partner Benefits in Ohio
On November 22, Ohio state legislator Thomas Brinkman sued Miami University for its Domestic Partner benefits policy, stating that it is in violation of Ohio's fairly recently amended constitution.
Brinkman has become the proverbial scum on the lake at Miami, for the students that actually show up to hear him speak attack him on the basis of their perceptions of him, not on the merits of his case.
Today the Miami Student newspaper reported that Brinkman's lawsuit against Miami has been thrown out of court because the Ohio taxpayer, legislator, and parent of a Miami student forgot to mention that he pays tuition to Miami University in the hearing. The Alliance Defense Fund, who is supporting Brinkman against Miami, have said they will appeal. You can read the judge's decision here, in which the lawyer for Miami foolishly claims that the judge made no judgments about the merit of the case:
Plaintiff, Thomas Brinkman, a taxpayer and citizen, disagrees sharply with Defendant, Miami University, an instrumentality of the state, regarding its provision of medical insurance benefits to those it classifies as same-sex domestic partners of its employees. Brinkman maintains that Miami’s policy violates the Ohio Constitution. Arguably Brinkman is correct, but he lacks the requisite, adverse legal interest in the dispute.
...
Arguably the State of Ohio, through its instrumentality or arm, Miami University, has done that which is constitutionally proscribed. It has seemingly created a category of persons, same-sex domestic partners of its employees, to whom the state extends the same kind of medical insurance benefits, and perhaps other benefits, which the state has traditionally reserved for spouses of employees. It is obvious that in order for the same-sex domestic partners of employees to qualify for benefits, the relationship between the cohabiting persons must be virtually the same as that of spouses.
The judge then goes on to question whether Brinkman has any legal recourse, and contemplates ways that the Ohio state legislature or the governor could act to bring Miami University in line with the Ohio Constitution.
Miami and its lawyers claim this is a victory, but this is a resounding defeat for Domestic Partner benefits in Ohio. It's clear that the judge realizes that Miami's policy violates the Ohio constitution, and he makes a specific rejection of the argument that if the benefits are not funded through taxpayer moneys the violation does not occur (and also makes the comment that Miami's attempt to make this accounting change recognizes the University's understanding of its policy's violation of the constitution. Whoops).
So there you have it. I'm sure the appeal is on the way, and we'll have to wait and see how long it takes for the will of the people of Ohio to be done.
Brinkman has become the proverbial scum on the lake at Miami, for the students that actually show up to hear him speak attack him on the basis of their perceptions of him, not on the merits of his case.
Today the Miami Student newspaper reported that Brinkman's lawsuit against Miami has been thrown out of court because the Ohio taxpayer, legislator, and parent of a Miami student forgot to mention that he pays tuition to Miami University in the hearing. The Alliance Defense Fund, who is supporting Brinkman against Miami, have said they will appeal. You can read the judge's decision here, in which the lawyer for Miami foolishly claims that the judge made no judgments about the merit of the case:
Plaintiff, Thomas Brinkman, a taxpayer and citizen, disagrees sharply with Defendant, Miami University, an instrumentality of the state, regarding its provision of medical insurance benefits to those it classifies as same-sex domestic partners of its employees. Brinkman maintains that Miami’s policy violates the Ohio Constitution. Arguably Brinkman is correct, but he lacks the requisite, adverse legal interest in the dispute.
...
Arguably the State of Ohio, through its instrumentality or arm, Miami University, has done that which is constitutionally proscribed. It has seemingly created a category of persons, same-sex domestic partners of its employees, to whom the state extends the same kind of medical insurance benefits, and perhaps other benefits, which the state has traditionally reserved for spouses of employees. It is obvious that in order for the same-sex domestic partners of employees to qualify for benefits, the relationship between the cohabiting persons must be virtually the same as that of spouses.
The judge then goes on to question whether Brinkman has any legal recourse, and contemplates ways that the Ohio state legislature or the governor could act to bring Miami University in line with the Ohio Constitution.
Miami and its lawyers claim this is a victory, but this is a resounding defeat for Domestic Partner benefits in Ohio. It's clear that the judge realizes that Miami's policy violates the Ohio constitution, and he makes a specific rejection of the argument that if the benefits are not funded through taxpayer moneys the violation does not occur (and also makes the comment that Miami's attempt to make this accounting change recognizes the University's understanding of its policy's violation of the constitution. Whoops).
So there you have it. I'm sure the appeal is on the way, and we'll have to wait and see how long it takes for the will of the people of Ohio to be done.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Environmentalists, destroying the world, etc...
Here at
1. Eat lower on the food chain and consume less meat.
“If Americans reduced their meat intake by just 10%, the savings in grain and soybeans could adequately feed 60 million people- the number of people who starve to death, worldwide, each year”
A full grown steer will have used 284 gallons of oil 2; a single serving of chicken uses 408 gallons of water. A meat based diet uses substantially more energy to produce than a vegetarian based diet; the carbon dioxide differences is like driving a SUV each year instead of a small compact car.
All well and good, except of course for the fact that most of the grain and soybeans grown in the
6.Turn off the lights when you leave a room.
It’s the easiest thing you can do. Electricity isn’t ‘clean’, it is made by burning dirty coal. The Average American uses 20 lbs of coal a day!
Dirty Coal? What is dirty coal? Coal burns cleaner than any other energy-producing fuel we have - and by the way it accounts for the vast majority of energy production in the
7. Consume Consciously.
Buying products made of post consumer recycled materials uses 70-90% less energy 10. Buying local uses less fuel and supports community members. Local uses 1/5 less energy. Try visiting the
Bye-bye world economy! No more watches, cars, computers - heck - no more anything that's not produced in the
What else is on this site? Why, the gratuitous link to An Inconvenient Truth, which, by the way, has had quite an inconvenient year. What with only one of the proposed six hurricanes hitting the
Monday, April 03, 2006
Hooray for College Republicans!
From those stubborn college conservatives that brought you the phrase, "People that think they are always right annoy those of us who actually are" on a t-shirt bring you Conservative Week 2006!
Update: As an aside, I saw another publication today on the door of a dorm that also advertised Conservative Week. It said (approximately):
CHUCK NORRIS IS A REPUBLICAN!
Conservative Week 2006
**Disclaimer: For every one of these signs you rip down we will just replace it with another, thereby killing the tree that you hugged last night.
Inflammatory yet hilarious.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Brinkman vs. Miami University: The Main Event
If you want me to sum up the whole event it was simply a lesson in futility.
The first round goes to the angry liberal Miami students and staff. Brinkman's lawyer started off the discussion by referring to Miami as the "University of Miami," which is a fatal sin to Miami students. Miami University in Ohio is "Miami University" not the "University of Miami" Hurricanes. The students (who after Brinkman's introduction hissed instead of clapped) went wild after that, and the angry undercurrents got even worse when Brinkman referred to Miami President Dr. Garland as "Dr. Garlish" or "Garbund" or something a person who sues a University should not be mispronouncing in front of angry liberal college students. Brinkman went on to insult a variety of Ohio Republicans (including Governor Taft) which didn't look particularly good, either.
The second round went soundly to Brinkman and company. Angry liberal student after angry liberal student stood up and gave long orations about discrimination and civil rights and the 14th amendment. No matter how long the applause went or how loudly the crowd howled, every attack on Brinkman was soundly refuted.
The best example of this is when one of the students repeated the most-often cited attack on the Brinkman vs. Miami lawsuit. If one of the points of the suit is to save Miami money by not offering benefits to domestic partners then why waste student money defending a lawsuit?! One particular student went on and on about how his tuition is going to go up and how the state of Ohio doesn't give Miami enough money and on and on and on. After his speech the crowd gleefully leapt to their feet and clapped for longer than the original speech! However, Brinkman's lawyer smartly responded with what liberal college students fear - the truth. He replied that since Miami is a state agency its defense money comes from state coffers and would not influence the university budget at all. Being that this was a major talking point against Brinkman and it was so quickly and masterfully destroyed with one sentence it was no wonder that the students sat back in quiet confusion.
Finally, the decision rests soundly with Brinkman. As I had stated earlier I felt that it would be difficult and nearly impossible for him to prove that Miami's domestic partner benefits program attempted to "imitate" the institution of marriage. Brinkman wrapped up the discussion (a.k.a. liberal attack fest) by soundly restating that the benefits offered by Miami have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The violation of Ohio's constitution rests solely in the fact that Miami put together a concise and specific affidavit with the purpose of establishing the existence of a "domestic partnership" that brings with it specific benefits. This argument is very sound and through the extended clapping and whining of 3/4 of the audience no one was able to refute this idea.
Brinkman landed the knockout punch by reminding the students in the crowd that if they didn't like the Ohio Constitution's amendment against institutions imitating marriage that they should get together, gather 300,000 signatures, and put on the Ohio ballot a measure to appeal the amendment. After all, citizens of Ohio went through this same procedure to put this measure in the constitution originally - a measure which passed with 62% of Ohioans supporting it.
Quite a damning final statement. I wonder how many "activist" college student will do anything more to oppose Brinkman's lawsuit besides hissing at him and yelling "bullshit" in the shadowed background of a meeting room.
Also: There was also a contest of wills between random signage and clothing. The anti-Brinkman crowd wore stickers with an "equals" sign on them. However, the Miami College Republicans all had the same shirt with this paragraph on the back:
People that think they are always right annoy those of us who actually are.
Fantastic.
The first round goes to the angry liberal Miami students and staff. Brinkman's lawyer started off the discussion by referring to Miami as the "University of Miami," which is a fatal sin to Miami students. Miami University in Ohio is "Miami University" not the "University of Miami" Hurricanes. The students (who after Brinkman's introduction hissed instead of clapped) went wild after that, and the angry undercurrents got even worse when Brinkman referred to Miami President Dr. Garland as "Dr. Garlish" or "Garbund" or something a person who sues a University should not be mispronouncing in front of angry liberal college students. Brinkman went on to insult a variety of Ohio Republicans (including Governor Taft) which didn't look particularly good, either.
The second round went soundly to Brinkman and company. Angry liberal student after angry liberal student stood up and gave long orations about discrimination and civil rights and the 14th amendment. No matter how long the applause went or how loudly the crowd howled, every attack on Brinkman was soundly refuted.
The best example of this is when one of the students repeated the most-often cited attack on the Brinkman vs. Miami lawsuit. If one of the points of the suit is to save Miami money by not offering benefits to domestic partners then why waste student money defending a lawsuit?! One particular student went on and on about how his tuition is going to go up and how the state of Ohio doesn't give Miami enough money and on and on and on. After his speech the crowd gleefully leapt to their feet and clapped for longer than the original speech! However, Brinkman's lawyer smartly responded with what liberal college students fear - the truth. He replied that since Miami is a state agency its defense money comes from state coffers and would not influence the university budget at all. Being that this was a major talking point against Brinkman and it was so quickly and masterfully destroyed with one sentence it was no wonder that the students sat back in quiet confusion.
Finally, the decision rests soundly with Brinkman. As I had stated earlier I felt that it would be difficult and nearly impossible for him to prove that Miami's domestic partner benefits program attempted to "imitate" the institution of marriage. Brinkman wrapped up the discussion (a.k.a. liberal attack fest) by soundly restating that the benefits offered by Miami have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The violation of Ohio's constitution rests solely in the fact that Miami put together a concise and specific affidavit with the purpose of establishing the existence of a "domestic partnership" that brings with it specific benefits. This argument is very sound and through the extended clapping and whining of 3/4 of the audience no one was able to refute this idea.
Brinkman landed the knockout punch by reminding the students in the crowd that if they didn't like the Ohio Constitution's amendment against institutions imitating marriage that they should get together, gather 300,000 signatures, and put on the Ohio ballot a measure to appeal the amendment. After all, citizens of Ohio went through this same procedure to put this measure in the constitution originally - a measure which passed with 62% of Ohioans supporting it.
Quite a damning final statement. I wonder how many "activist" college student will do anything more to oppose Brinkman's lawsuit besides hissing at him and yelling "bullshit" in the shadowed background of a meeting room.
Also: There was also a contest of wills between random signage and clothing. The anti-Brinkman crowd wore stickers with an "equals" sign on them. However, the Miami College Republicans all had the same shirt with this paragraph on the back:
People that think they are always right annoy those of us who actually are.
Fantastic.
Brinkman vs. Miami University: Pregame
There's no point in hiding it anymore - I am a graduate student at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. This is partly to blame for my extensive blogging about Miami's domestic partner benefits. I wrote earlier that the issue had finally come to a head. Recently enacted "Issue 1" of the Ohio Constitution prohibits any state institution from imitating the institution of marriage. Although this constitutional amendment was passed last year Miami continued to offer benefits. Without any court definition of the amendment no action was taken against Miami, but now state Representative Tom Brinkman has sued Miami to end the same-sex partner benefits program.
Tonight the Miami University College Republicans have brought Rep. Brinkman and his lawyer to speak at the university center. Already there have been various calls to protest and to rally against the Rep. and his lawsuit, the last one being tonight which I briefly attended. It's sad to say, but the opposition has already belittled it's position with lies. Although I believe it will be enormously difficult (or more likely impossible) for Rep. Brinkman to prove that Miami's domestic partner benefits attempt to "imitate" the institution of marriage it seems that the student, faculty, and staff opposition can't find any way to argue their case.
I walked up to a small on-campus rally (probably just over 50 students on a campus of around 16,000) to hear the student speakers spreading lies and non-sequiturs. First, the speakers tried to belittle the domestic partner benefits and described them as "only 15 specific benefits" that same-sex domestic partners receive at Miami. They never outright said it, but they were implying that same-sex domestic partner benefits at Miami are somehow less than what married couples get and that domestic partners should be able to retain these few benefits. This is simply untrue as Miami domestic partners receive the exact same benefits as married couples. All of them.
Second, the speakers continued to claim that same-sex domestic partners deserved their benefits because of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. While there is some truth to this idea, there is a non-sequitur with their previous point - that same-sex domestic partners do not get all the benefits of married couples. If domestic partners only get "15" of the benefits that married couples do, then they are already being treated unequally!
The speech will be tonight at 8:00. I will be sure to attend, although I may have to leave a bit early. I'm sure it will get ugly quickly, and I'll be sure to report what happened.
Tonight the Miami University College Republicans have brought Rep. Brinkman and his lawyer to speak at the university center. Already there have been various calls to protest and to rally against the Rep. and his lawsuit, the last one being tonight which I briefly attended. It's sad to say, but the opposition has already belittled it's position with lies. Although I believe it will be enormously difficult (or more likely impossible) for Rep. Brinkman to prove that Miami's domestic partner benefits attempt to "imitate" the institution of marriage it seems that the student, faculty, and staff opposition can't find any way to argue their case.
I walked up to a small on-campus rally (probably just over 50 students on a campus of around 16,000) to hear the student speakers spreading lies and non-sequiturs. First, the speakers tried to belittle the domestic partner benefits and described them as "only 15 specific benefits" that same-sex domestic partners receive at Miami. They never outright said it, but they were implying that same-sex domestic partner benefits at Miami are somehow less than what married couples get and that domestic partners should be able to retain these few benefits. This is simply untrue as Miami domestic partners receive the exact same benefits as married couples. All of them.
Second, the speakers continued to claim that same-sex domestic partners deserved their benefits because of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. While there is some truth to this idea, there is a non-sequitur with their previous point - that same-sex domestic partners do not get all the benefits of married couples. If domestic partners only get "15" of the benefits that married couples do, then they are already being treated unequally!
The speech will be tonight at 8:00. I will be sure to attend, although I may have to leave a bit early. I'm sure it will get ugly quickly, and I'll be sure to report what happened.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
It's about time!
Here it is - the big legal battle that was one of the reasons for starting this blog. As I described here and here and here, the voters of Ohio passed a resolution to the state constitution that prevents state institutions from giving unmarried couples benefits that married couples traditionally receive.
Today after months of waiting, Ohio Representative Tom Brinkman finally sued Miami University over their continuing policy to grant Domestic Partner benefits in glaring opposition to Ohio's constitution.
On Nov. 22, Ohio state Rep. Tom Brinkman, R-Cincinnati, filed a lawsuit against Miami University, alleging that its current policy of granting benefits to employees in domestic relationships violates the state Constitution and favors employees involved in domestic "marriage-mimicking" relationships above married heterosexual employees.
Besides the fact that granting benefits to unmarried couples is against the Ohio constitution I always took issue with Miami's domestic partner policy. You see, Miami defines domestic partners as only same-sex relationships. In other words Miami does not give benefits to any unmarried heterosexual couples (whether it be common-law marriage or any other) with the flawed belief that these people could just "get married" if they wanted to.
It's interesting that Miami, Ohio State, and others have gotten away with violating Ohio's constitution for months, but in the end it was their refusal to create an inclusive definition of "domestic partner" that ultimately brought down the lawsuit. We'll see how this pans out...
Today after months of waiting, Ohio Representative Tom Brinkman finally sued Miami University over their continuing policy to grant Domestic Partner benefits in glaring opposition to Ohio's constitution.
On Nov. 22, Ohio state Rep. Tom Brinkman, R-Cincinnati, filed a lawsuit against Miami University, alleging that its current policy of granting benefits to employees in domestic relationships violates the state Constitution and favors employees involved in domestic "marriage-mimicking" relationships above married heterosexual employees.
Besides the fact that granting benefits to unmarried couples is against the Ohio constitution I always took issue with Miami's domestic partner policy. You see, Miami defines domestic partners as only same-sex relationships. In other words Miami does not give benefits to any unmarried heterosexual couples (whether it be common-law marriage or any other) with the flawed belief that these people could just "get married" if they wanted to.
It's interesting that Miami, Ohio State, and others have gotten away with violating Ohio's constitution for months, but in the end it was their refusal to create an inclusive definition of "domestic partner" that ultimately brought down the lawsuit. We'll see how this pans out...
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Domestic Partners in Ohio... until next time...
After not receiving a reply for three weeks or so, I gave Jim Petro's office another call. After finally reaching them and being able to speak with someone, I know now what I assumed before. Without a case for a precedent, the enforcement of Issue 1 towards state-sponsored institutions is impossible. I was also informed that although no case is currently pending, it can be reasoned that one is in the works.
And another interesting point: the Attorney General's office informed me of quite a conundrum on their part. If someone sues one of the state institutions for providing domestic partner benefits, the Attorney General must defend the institution- as the office is responsible for presiding on behalf of the state. However, if someone would sue the state of Ohio over the constitutionality of Issue 1, the attorney General would also have to fight for the state, on the other side of the coin. I guess we'll have to wait and see...
And another interesting point: the Attorney General's office informed me of quite a conundrum on their part. If someone sues one of the state institutions for providing domestic partner benefits, the Attorney General must defend the institution- as the office is responsible for presiding on behalf of the state. However, if someone would sue the state of Ohio over the constitutionality of Issue 1, the attorney General would also have to fight for the state, on the other side of the coin. I guess we'll have to wait and see...
Monday, February 14, 2005
Domestic Partners in Ohio II
I contacted Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro's office on Thursday of last week and was told that my inquiry about Ohio's "Issue One" had been sent to their constituency questions department. I expect a call back soon, so I hope that I will have an answer about what exactly this constitutional change means for Ohio-sponsored universities that still offer domestic partner benefits to their employees.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Domestic Partners in Ohio
Having moved to Ohio recently from Iowa, I entered the workforce in the state just before "Issue 1" was voted on by the people of Ohio to be added to the states constitution. It passed, and the constitution of the state now reads:
"Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:
That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:
Article XV
Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
As I am currently employed by a Division 1 state-assisted institution of higher education in the state of Ohio, I know first hand that my employer, including other state colleges in Ohio (Bowling Green State University, Miami University, The Ohio State University, and Wright State University) have not eliminated domestic partner benefits from their current employee benefit packages. In my opinion, this is in direct violation of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. When I questioned my employer, the reply I received was that the institution would continue to offer domestic partner benefits until a lawsuit warranted them to fight for their continuation. I was dumbfounded.
Furthermore, some institutions have begun to advertise for position openings for the next year, and have included in the advertisements the fact that their employee benefits include those for domestic partners! In addition to ignoring the state constitution, they are now advertising their defiance.
I plan to give the attorney general a call sometime this week and ask that office to explain the exact legal meaning of "Issue 1" and whether or not these institutions are in willful violation.
"Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:
That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:
Article XV
Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
As I am currently employed by a Division 1 state-assisted institution of higher education in the state of Ohio, I know first hand that my employer, including other state colleges in Ohio (Bowling Green State University, Miami University, The Ohio State University, and Wright State University) have not eliminated domestic partner benefits from their current employee benefit packages. In my opinion, this is in direct violation of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. When I questioned my employer, the reply I received was that the institution would continue to offer domestic partner benefits until a lawsuit warranted them to fight for their continuation. I was dumbfounded.
Furthermore, some institutions have begun to advertise for position openings for the next year, and have included in the advertisements the fact that their employee benefits include those for domestic partners! In addition to ignoring the state constitution, they are now advertising their defiance.
I plan to give the attorney general a call sometime this week and ask that office to explain the exact legal meaning of "Issue 1" and whether or not these institutions are in willful violation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
