Let’s Do It, But Say We Don’t

Randy Stapilus writes about the IVA’s reaction to a Moscow City ordinance creating domestic partnerships:

The ordinance states:

“A City employee who files the Affidavit Of Qualifying Domestic Partnership acknowledges to Regence that the information provided in such Affidavit is for the sole purpose of determining eligibility for the related Regence Blue Shield of Idaho benefits and, therefore, is not an establishment of a ‘domestic partnership’ or of a ‘domestic legal union’ prohibited in the State of Idaho.”

According to the Constitution of Idaho, ” A marriage between a man and a woman is   the only domestic legal union that shall be valid  or  recognized  in  this state.” Moscow’s trying to weasel around this by saying, “The domestic partnership aren’t a domestic legal union. There are several problems with this, the greatest being the actual common use of the words,”Domestic Partnership.” Findlaw refers to Domestic Partnership benefits this way, “The term “domestic partner benefits” refers to employee benefit plans that offer to non-married couples the same or similar benefits as those provided to married couples.” Thus what Moscow’s trying to say is, “What Domestic Partnership means everywhere else, it doesn’t mean here.”

The second point is the actual intent of the resolution. One of the Whereas’ states:

In essence what Moscow is wanting to do is to create a situation where a non-married domestic entity is treated the same as  marriage, and covering themselves  by saying they aren’t do what they’re doing.  This is blatantly unconstitutional and like it or not, I don’t think the city’s policy will survive.