Comments on Advance Indiana™: Eli Lilly Announces Opposition To SJR-7

Dear anonymous 11:47, If you want to lead the cha...

2007-03-29T19:18:00.000-05:00

Dear anonymous 11:47,

If you want to lead the charge for the position that DP benefits shouldn't be linked to marriage for anyone, be my guest. While you're at it, you might even stop to wonder why we ask corporations in the country to add the cost of health care to their products, when corporations in every other industrialized democracy are freed from this burden.

But in the meantime, I don't recall either AI or any other poster on this blog making the argument that unmarried heterosexual couples shouldn't be eligible for DP benefits. Don't give AI grief for an argument he never made.

And by the way, it took more than moving in together for my partner and I to be eligible to receive DP benefits. In addition to attesting that we had "an exclusive mutual commitment that is the functional equivalent of a marriage" we had to supply the following documentation to "verify our interdependent financial relationship":

a) Joint ownership of residence (home, condo, mobile home) or a lease for a residence identifying both partners as tenants, and

b) Two of the following: joint ownership of a motor vehicle; joint credit account; joint checking
account; or other evidence of joint ownership of a major asset or joint liability of debt.

Home run? Sounds more like a pop fly out to me. ...

2007-03-29T11:47:00.000-05:00

Home run? Sounds more like a pop fly out to me. Jeff and others on this blog talk so much about fairness. But what you just described is a situation where heterosexual couples are required to make a long-term, legal commitment in order to get those benefits. But a gay couple could get those benefits by doing the heterosexual equivalent of moving in together.

If "fairness" is really your concern, then why aren't you also advocating hetero couples should get these benefits?

You're OUT! Next batter, please.

DING DING DINGJeff hits a home run

2007-03-28T19:48:00.000-05:00

DING DING DING

Jeff hits a home run

At IU domestic partner benefits are NOT available ...

2007-03-28T19:32:00.000-05:00

At IU domestic partner benefits are NOT available to unmarried heterosexual partners, only same-sex. I assume the reason is that marriage is available for one and not the other.

3:42,unmarried heterosexual most certainly do rece...

2007-03-28T18:58:00.000-05:00

3:42,
unmarried heterosexual most certainly do receive domestic partner benefits. They do at my company anyway.

What are "DP benefits?" I know it stands for "dom...

2007-03-28T15:42:00.000-05:00

What are "DP benefits?" I know it stands for "domestic partners." But who else other than gay people qualify for such things? Unmarried heterosexual couples sure don't qualify. So if you want to talk about "fairness," where's the fairness in that? By all the standards I see on this blog, that is discrimination. Isn't it?

To be honest, shouldn't these things be called "Gay Benefits" or "Gay-Lesbian Benefits?"

Regardless, 2:53, I find it really interesting tha...

2007-03-28T15:38:00.000-05:00

Regardless, 2:53, I find it really interesting that the opponents focus so much on Ohio and Michigan, which have almost no similarity, and have been silent on Oklahoma, which is very similar.

And let's put that quote into context. "Clarity" on what? I bet it wasn't a question of whether private companies can offer DP benefits.

The Oklahoma amendment should not be held up as a ...

2007-03-28T14:53:00.000-05:00

The Oklahoma amendment should not be held up as a model. Here's what a federal district judge said late last year about the specific language in the Oklahoma amendment that is identical to the second sentence of the Indiana amendment: "This sentence is not a model of clarity." Bishop v. Oklahoma, 447 F.Supp.2d, 1239, 1253 (N.D.Okla. 2006).

So if anyone were looking for any insight into how the courts will construe what "construe" means (as well as the other undefined terms), here's one take on just how "clear and unambiguous" the Indiana language really is.

It was a very nice surprise this morning to see a ...

2007-03-28T13:44:00.000-05:00

It was a very nice surprise this morning to see a Star article with something more than he-said, she-said quotes.

We have heard so much on this blog and elsewhere about the Michigan and Ohio amendments, even though those two amendments have very little resemblance to SJR007. But of course, we've heard nothing here about the Oklahoma amendment, which is much more similar (and relevant). Why not?

It is really a shame that Eli Lilly, a science-based organization, would fall for the he-said, she-said game rather than facts and actual research.

Very good news indeed! What ever happend to sepera...

2007-03-28T13:26:00.000-05:00

Very good news indeed! What ever happend to seperate Church and State! SJR-7 is just religion creeping it's way in.

Lilly needs to be much more of a leader on many is...

2007-03-28T13:02:00.000-05:00

Lilly needs to be much more of a leader on many issues. They are dead silent as the Peterson kleptocracy runs the city for the benefit of themselves and their cronies as murders and other crime soars out of control. There are a host of urban planning and other ills affecting the city. Lilly is the only one with the clout to stand up and say that things like SJR-7, the Marriott Hotel design, and a depleted police force are not acceptable and that their growth is going elsewhere if things aren't fixed. Because growth is growing elsewhere. Lilly is shrinking locally as they boost R&D in Singapore and elsewhere. They just aren't telling the city why it is no longer an attractive place to do business. The Lilly CEO needs to stand up and be counted.

It's a biennial budget year. Certain legislators ...

2007-03-28T12:58:00.000-05:00

It's a biennial budget year. Certain legislators are well-known for their budgetary threats from session to session.

Those legislators always have good seats to the IU basketball games.

I'm writing all the IU trustees on this one. They ought to be ashamed.

The Lilly news is terrific, though. Why it took them this long to come to this conclusion is beyond me, but better late than never. They only started offering domestic partner benefits three years ago. In that respect, their recruitment experience, with and without the benefits, is fresh and applicable. That message could be even stronger: "We did it three years ago without benefits, and we recruit now with benefits. With is better."

Which is what I think they were trying to say in the letter.

Restores my faith in Lilly. Which is, after all, heavily subsidized in tax relief form all Hoosiers, especially Marion County residents.

I wonder why the big State U's haven't had the ner...

2007-03-28T11:37:00.000-05:00

I wonder why the big State U's haven't had the nerve on this one? Surely it can't be because funding concerns trump principles...

IU and incoming president Michael McRobbie are kee...

2007-03-28T11:26:00.000-05:00

IU and incoming president Michael McRobbie are keeping their head in the sand on this one. An article in the Bloomington Herald-Times this morning read that "Michael McRobbie, who will take over July 1 as IU president, said the university administration hasn’t taken a position on the amendment. He said attorneys say it won’t affect IU’s domestic-partner benefits policy." However, the IU Faculty Council did issue a statement strongly opposing the admendment.