Council should again reject same-sex benefits plan

The Colorado Springs City Council may soon consider major changes to the city's employee health care plan. The proposed changes are financially irresponsible and illustrate how out of touch city officials are with residents. More than that, though, they represent a violation of the trust residents placed in current council members during the 2003 election.

Voters may recall the decision by the then-City Council in late 2002 to provide next-to-no-cost health care benefits to the same-sex partners of homosexual city workers. A KOAA-TV survey at the time found that nearly three-fourths of Colorado Springs residents objected to the council's action.

The subsequent election in March 2003 was a mandate to overturn this regretful decision -- only one candidate who publicly supported homosexual benefits was elected. One of the new council's first items of business in April was to overturn the special health care coverage by an 8-to-1 vote.

But those friendly to the homosexual agenda have found a way around the will of the people. Under the package now before the council, same-sex partners of homosexual employees could get access to health care benefits, although they would have to pay a monthly premium this time around.

The problem is the cost of the premium would not cover the actual health care costs -- a fact confirmed by the city's consultants and its human relations department. Taxpayers would be required to cover the difference, and in a bizarre leap of logic, supporters of the plan claim that raising the premiums to cover the actual costs would put the city at even more financial risk. This is what's known as "new math."

But even if all the city's health care costs were covered by the premiums, this plan remains a horrendously bad idea for three reasons.

First, it is highly discriminatory. Only homosexual employees would be eligible to extend benefits to non-relatives. Rights extended to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation are called special rights -- and complex legalese of the type found in the details of the city's plan doesn't alter this fact.

Second, the plan ignores the importance of the traditional family. Traditional marriage between one man and one woman has served as the foundation of society for millennia. Every time elected officials tinker with the definition of family, the economic, social and emotional costs are tremendous -- just look at no-fault divorce. Social engineering has been and will always be a disaster.

If Colorado Springs really wants to extend special health care benefits to attract talent, why not do so in a way that helps the traditional family? Why not cover the costs of an adult son or daughter just entering the workforce with a company that does not provide health care? Why not offer benefits to the retired city employee not yet old enough to collect Social Security? Why not help cover the costs of medicine for the live-in elderly parent who cannot afford supplemental insurance?

To be sure, the proposed plan has tried to create the impression of providing benefits to these other groups. But the people who really need it -- the elderly and adult children -- can't get them. And that makes this plan a farce.

Third, our culture is on a slippery slope relative to the homosexual agenda. In every city and at every corporation where special benefits have been created for homosexuals, it has prompted demands for additional benefits in the name of "fairness" and "tolerance."

Our City Council should not be confused by this line of argument. What's at issue here isn't "fairness" or "tolerance" for any group of Colorado Springs residents except those voters who have clearly stated they don't want to pay for a health care plan like the one now before the council.

Taxpayers want the council to maintain roads, attract jobs, manage growth, protect safety and the like, not to redefine the meaning of marriage and family.

Brandt is director of issues response for Focus on the Family. The ministry's analysis of the health care proposal can be found at www.citizenlink.org.

Copyright 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.