Waymon Hudson

Michigan Supreme Court- "No benefits for gay partners"

Filed By Waymon Hudson | May 07, 2008 5:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Marriage Equality, Politics, Politics
Tags: benefits, domestic partner, Florida, marriage amendment, Michigan, Supreme Court

The decision is in from the Michigan Supreme Court- the 2004 Michigan ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner benefits. The court ruled 5-2 that governments and state universities can't offer health insurance to the partners of gay workers.

According to the AP:

Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments in Michigan have benefit policies covering at least 375 gay couples.

More after the jump...

This decision comes after the sponsors of the marriage ban said it would have no affect on partnership benefits when they were pushing for it to pass in 2004.

They are saying the same thing about the amendment in Florida, which is on the ballot in November. The Florida amendment also includes broad language that is sure to be used to roll back established domestic partnership registries and other benefits. Just like in Michigan, the conservative courts would almost assuredly interpret the amendment the same way in Florida, destroying the benefits that untold numbers of couples and families depend on.

I really wish the people that were always screaming about "protecting the children" and "saving families" would stop demolishing the protections that many families depend on. Taking away insurance and other benefits only shows the length that many will go to in order to enshrine what their own narrow definition of what a family is- no matter whom it hurts in the process.

Want to really strengthen families and protect children? Make sure they have the protections and rights needed to provide for each other.


To help in the fight against Florida's "Marriage Protection Amendment", please visit www.SayNo2.com and make a contribution.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


When I first campaigned around this issue in Nevada's "No On 2" back in 2000, I recall the anti-queer talking point that gone thrown back at us so often... "this isn't about domestic partner benefits or medical decision making... it's just about the definition of marriage."

People believed them.

Now, I hope that the general public starts to become aware just how discriminatory, hateful and hypocritical these liars are.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | May 7, 2008 8:25 PM

And the solution to these kind people is to leave children and families without health coverage. Yep, they sure have the high ground on family values.

They are saying the same thing about the amendment in Florida, which is on the ballot in November.

And they said the same thing in Indiana....

No matter what they said in Michigan, it was their idea all along to get rid of those benefits. They don't care who gets sick, as long as they can punish people who don't participate in het marriage.

You're right, Alex. We used the Michigan lawsuit as an example of what would happen in Indiana if they adopted similar language here. While I sympathize with my neighboring state, I have to admit a perverse joy in being correct. Perhaps our legislators will catch a clue now...

Want to really strengthen families and protect children? Ban divorce.

I'm really liking the idea some politicians in Broward County have to divide Florida into 2 states. Those of us in the urban, cultured, civilized State of South Florida will do just fine without the discrimination of the yahoos in north Florida. And I nominate Waymon as the Governor of the great State of South Florida!

Dianne-

Don't we already have a gay governor? oh wait...

:)

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | May 8, 2008 9:23 AM

It may come as a surprise to many unfamiliar with the way legislative and constitutional language is interpreted, but it isn't all that unusual for courts to do their own thing concerning what language means and consider irrelavent what the proponents said about it prior to enactment. Indiana, for example, has a fairly strong set of precedents which say essentially that.

Lesson learned: If proponents of something say it won't do this or that, then insist they put those plain words into what they are offering. Let's keep the "bait and switch" game confined at best to car and kitchen knife sales.

Waymon, don't be so silly. We can have the closeted Gayvenor in the State of North Florida and the out Gayvenor in the State of South Florida.

Due the the inherent differences of most people from each part of the state I believe dividing Florida into 2 completely separate states is a great idea.