Domestic-partner benefits, annexation and why I’m for Bothwell and Smith

I'm quite bothered by candidate Terry Bellamy's implication that the city of Asheville might not have the ability to grant domestic-partner benefits under North Carolina law. If this is the case, then the city should respond by canceling all family benefits and paying employees additional cash (retaining the same budget limits). Not only would such a policy be fair to gay employees, but it would also be fair to single, childless and child-free employees as well, who are the most environmentally responsible and deserve equal total compensation at least.

Additionally, without a North Carolina discrimination law, Asheville can do far better than nondiscrimination. Asheville remains free to institute gay affirmative action in hiring, both to compensate for discrimination elsewhere in WNC, like Wolf Laurel, and to save money on spousal benefits.

However, neither this nor environmentally oriented contraception funding, nor any other cutting-edge or precedent-setting progressive policy can become reality in Asheville if Asheville progressives, like Gordon Smith, insist on forced annexation, which would grant Asheville votes to significant numbers of socially conservative Leicesterites. The added tax base is not worth getting if it means progressives lose majority status in Asheville, especially since the best progressive ideas are not expensive.

In 11 years here, I learned that Leicesterites are not Ashevilleans, pro or con. Attempting to assimilate them (or us, sort of), would hurt everyone. Asheville needs to learn the same lesson as Israel: Draw a line, stick to it and accept a two-state solution, even if it costs some water.

I'm for Cecil Bothwell and Gordon Smith in Asheville due to their understanding, if not clear support, of environmental contraception, and despite Smith's self-destructive position on annexation. Zoning votes are so convoluted in Asheville that I can't see a clear direction from anyone, even Mumpower, and nobody is building anymore anyway.

— Alan Ditmore
Leicester

SHARE
About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

3 thoughts on “Domestic-partner benefits, annexation and why I’m for Bothwell and Smith

  1. artart

    WOW, unless I am dense, this writer advocates punishing heterosexuals. I am sure there are few who would advocate discrimination against homosexuals, but this guy wants the city to take away benefits from married couples cause they cannot, by law, give them to homosexual couples. Then , he advocates giving homosexuals preference in jobs over heterosexuals merely because of their sexual orientation. This is not the way to equality……actually these sort of inane ideas have the effect of punishing people for not being homosexual and therefore giving rise to resentment towards homosexuals. Now who really wants to encourage hostility toward homosexuals?

  2. hmp49

    While I am in favor of equal marriage rights and benefits etc, I always find it amusing when people argue how those with children get the best deal financially.

    It’s the kids I raised who will be taking care of them in their old age. It’s the kids I raise who will provide medical care, and the rest of the small tasks involved in keeping the world going. Any difference in benefits doesn’t begin to compensate for the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to raise and educate a child.

    Given the time as well as money involved in raising children, I have to laugh when I read “(the childless) are the most environmentally responsible.” Perhaps they should take their “responsibility” one step further and just shoot themselves now. Then we can move a step closer to a perfect world with NO people.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.