News Business Sports Entertainment Life Obituaries Opinion
Jobs Homes Cars Classifieds Shopping
Local Bloggers Cheap Tech Eco-Confessions Faceoff Furst Draft Kiger's Notebook Med City Movie Guy Pulse on Health Political Party

Search PB Blogs

Loading

Categories

« Emmer wants to count worker tips in minimum wage | Main | Demmer raises more than $300,000 in 2nd quarter »

July 06, 2010

Horner urges Roch to OK domestic partnership benefits

Tom horner
In an interview today, Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner said he hopes the Rochester City Council will approve a proposal to register same-sex domestic partnership so these individuals could have certificates to prove their legal attachment. Here's a story about the proposal.

"I hope that the Rochester City Council is able to go ahead and pass the domestic benefits. I think for Minnesota to be a state that is open to the best talent, that attracts the best talent, we need to address these kinds of equality issues and be a leader in addressing them," he said.

Horner said he does support legalizing gay marriage in Minnesota. But he added, "I understand that most Minnesotans aren't ready to take that on. I think what they are ready to take on are the same kinds of steps in the public sector that the private sector already has taken and has been there is some cases for many years."

Mayo Clinic, the largest private employer in the state, does provide domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

The Rochester City Council is scheduled to vote on the proposal on Wednesday.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cc8269e20133f2189880970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Horner urges Roch to OK domestic partnership benefits:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I appreciate Horner's support of domestic partner benefits and of marriage equality for same-sex partners. However, the proposal that was in front of the city council had nothing to do with domestic partner benefits. The proposal was for a domestic partner "registry", which is a symbolic move on part of the city council and has no practical effect for domestic partners.

I thought domestic partner benefits were already in place as of...what, 2008? 2007? Why did I think that if that isn't the case...?

Post a comment.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.