Ugh.

The obvious thing here is that if they want to save costs by reducing benefits for non-employees, they need to do it across the board, and not just do it to the gays.

Obvious, but worth stating.

:(

You know, they'd save a lot more money if they strip health care benefits for the partners and dependents of married employees. In fact, I don't think this is legal for the district, unless they don't give any benefits to spouses of employees: See this publication (pdf) by EQCA.

Duh. This must be Incline Village, NV. Poor reporting on SFGate's part.

Not that it's any better that it happened in NV instead of CA.

Dear Mr. Bohn -

I am writing to let you know how disappointed I am that your Board has decided to rescind domestic partner benefits in order to "cut costs and prevent abuse" of the system.

If this is genuinely your reasoning, I am assuming that all spouses and dependents of married district employees are also having their benefits rescinded. Otherwise this is a patently discriminatory measure.

You and the Board should be ashamed of yourselves - healthcare is a right, not a privilege, and should never be based on anyone's marital status in the community.

Sincerely,
LT (I used my real name in the actual message)
Portsmouth, NH

That really burns me up that they're hiding their bigotry behind "financial reasons"

She says she thinks the board can make an "ethical judgment without being moralistic" about employees' marriage choices.

Hey, if we had a choice, we'd be married.

Income Village, NV

good luck with losing the excess dollars you previously had from the gay community reducing their tourism in your area to $0.