Writings and observations

Private domestic definitions

Of course this was going to be a lawsuit – the people in Moscow should have (and maybe they did) seen this coming. This is exactly the sort of thing the Idaho Values Alliance and its allies live for.

On Monday, the Moscow City Council passed an ordinance detailing provisions for the health insurance it provides, through Regence Blue Shield of Idaho. Among other things, it allows for coverage of household members including “domestic partners” – Regence’s language. The ordinance adds that “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.”

Not good enough for Bryan Fischer and the Idaho Values Alliance:

This action cannot go unchallenged, and cannot be allowed to stand. If Moscow gets away with granting domestic partnerships – including same-sex partnerships – equal status with one-man, one-woman marriages, the state’s marriage amendment will become meaningless.

The IVA will immediately begin to explore ways to trigger an investigation by the state Attorney General’s office into the blatantly unconstitutional conduct of what even locals call “The People’s Republic of Moscow.”

Fischer to the Spokesman-Review: “What Moscow did was to say that co-habiting and same-sex partnerships are legally and morally equivalent to the marriage of one man and one woman, and that is very bad public policy.” Actually, Moscow’s resolution said nothing of the sort (as you can tell by reading it). But that hardly matters:

And a new battle in the culture wars is underway.

Share on Facebook