To the commissioners, with copy to the municipal clerk for the file:
In response to Park's reluctance to extend health care benefits to the domestic partners of municipal employees:
I intend to raise, again, that Haddon Township should offer health care benefits to the certified domestic partners of municipal employees.
At this time, there are no known municipal employees who would act on this offer.
The reason that this Resolution should be adopted now is that it shows that the municipality treats its employees with a marriage license the same as its employees who have a domestic partnership certification, something that is supported by the public policy of New Jersey as well as by the State legislature.
One of Park's concerns is that such a Resolution might be unfair to people in common law relationships and that it might open a floodgate of requests from people in other situations. This argument is wholly without merit for several reasons:
The legislature of the State of New Jersey has not recognized (or even been asked to recognize) the legitimacy of common law relationships for the purpose of extending health care benefits for the partners of such relationships, because those persons are considered to have the option of marrying.
No government persons can have pension and health care benefits extended to their partners, unless the extension of those benefits are specifically permitted under the law.
The only two categories of people now recognized to be entitled to such benefits are persons who have a marriage license and persons who have a domestic partnership certification. Therefore, there is no threat or possibility of a "floodgate" of other people who might come forward to claim benefits for their partners.
Another of Park's concerns is that the adoption of this Resolution would somehow "discriminate" against people in common law relationships, and this concern is similarly misguided.
If the State legislature should chose to extend the right to benefits to any group, it may. The State of New Jersey has voted to extend health care benefits to the partners of persons having marriage licenses or domestic partnership certifications.
There is nothing discriminatory against persons in common law relationships, because State policy is that those persons have the choice to use the appropriate available State mechanism (license or certification) or not.
There is no merit to the argument that Haddon Township would somehow be discriminating against common law relationships if we follow the laws of the State of New Jersey.
Adopting the Resolution, as presented, would be a lawful and legal act, sanctioned by the State of New Jersey. There is no legitimate concern involving municipal employees who may be in a common law relationship, and it seems a bit of a red herring to raise it as a reason for not voting on the lawful Resolution, as presented.
If there ever becomes a groundswell of persons in common law unions who wish to be recognized by the State of New Jersey for the purpose of extending health care benefits to their partners, they can address it to the State legislature. It's a bogus argument, however, because the State will say, as it has already said, that persons in common law unions who wish such benefits must obtain a marriage license.
In any event, raising concerns about common law relationships is no excuse or reason not to vote on a Resolution that the State legislature actually DOES recognize and allow, and we would be doing nothing "discriminatory" to adopt it!
Another one of Park's concerns is how much it would cost to adopt this Resolution. This is not the right question. In practical terms, there are apparently no employees who would currently avail themselves of the benefits, but that is quite beside the point.
The reason this Resolution should be adopted is that it is the right thing to do, it is the principle of the thing, and it shows that the local government supports the equal treatment of all of our employees.
You do not withhold making a principled vote in support and recognition of equal treatment because of what it might cost.
There is a bigger cost to society in treating people unequally based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, an idea that the entire history of civil rights is based upon.
History has shown us repeatedly that separate is never equal. Maintaining laws and rules that perpetuate bigoted policies always carries with it the badge of inferior status, a designation that damages the persons against whom such notions are directed, and a practice that is damaging, too, to the advancement and fulfillment of the democratic ideals to which our country aspires.
It is never the right question to ask how much equal rights is going to cost, and it is particularly repugnant to use "cost" as an excuse to delay justice or derail the opportunities we have right before us to take a step for justice.
The cost of perpetuating injustice is always a far dearer cost to society than the cost of its elimination.
When schools were integrated and Jim Crow laws abandoned, it would have been ridiculous to worry about how much it would all cost, although those arguments were made by those clinging dearly to the status quo. The cost of creating fair and equal treatment for all of our citizens is the cost a society pays to be a decent society.
Another concern of Park's is what if the New Jersey Supreme Court decides to recognize gay marriage.
However the Supreme Court of New Jersey rules in the matter of gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with adopting the Resolution that is before you, and it should not be used as an excuse to delay a "yes" vote on the Resolution.
They are two totally different things, completely unrelated to one another. Any future ruling by the State Supreme Court would have no bearing on this Resolution.
Right now, government employees whose domestic partners are receiving health care benefits under their plans have to pay tax on those benefits as income to the employee. That's about the only thing that would be affected if the State Supreme Court recognized gay marriage, the State legislature would have to amend the tax code to show that the value of the benefits are no longer taxable as income.
None of this has any bearing whatsoever on the adoption of the Resolution as presented. Concerns about what the Supreme Court of New Jersey may or may not do should not be used as an excuse to delay the adoption of this Resolution.
Park has stated that the law allows us to extend health care benefits, but that we don't have to. Right, but the idea is that we SHOULD extend these benefits, because there is no legitimate good reason not to, and because we should agree to treat all of our employees equally, now that the law allows it.
Already, over 80 County, Municipal, and Educational employers in New Jersey have extended health benefits to the partners of government employees, as provided for under the law, and the number grows daily.
If you don't understand what the law is about, you can educate yourselves by reading what the State of New Jersey provides in "Fact Sheet 71." It explains what the law provides, and the process for adopting the appropriate resolutions. You can find it at http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/fact71.htm"
I have already provided the proper Resolution and the appropriate paperwork to you through our solicitor.
The state legislature has provided us with an opportunity to take one step in the right direction towards recognizing the basic human rights and equal dignity of our municipal employees. I urge you to vote "yes" for the Resolution, without further delay.
There is no legitimate good reason to continue to stall or object to the adoption of this Resolution.
Kathy Hogan, Deputy Mayor, Haddon Township
7 MacArthur Blvd., N-806 |
.gif)
