A proposal like this is long overdue!

Don't listen to the people who say this will cost taxpayer money -- the premiums are 100% paid for by the employee. No state funds go toward the cost of the insurance premiums.

That being said, why would anyone be against this measure? If my tax dollars are not being spent on this, then the employee becomes a private citizen, and I have no right to tell them that they can't spend their money on insurance premiums.

Also, to those who want to make this a gay-only issue: For 8 years I worked on the HR and Benefits systems at a large Virginia-based company that offered domestic-partner benefits to its employees. This may come as a surprise, but of all the employees who elected domestic-partner coverage (and there weren't that many), 75% of them were covering opposite-sex partners. If the proposal passes as written, you will see far more people covering their brother, sister, mother or other family member than you will see gay employees covering their partner.