Passing an amendment to Michigan's constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman "also signals the end of health care and other benefits for the same-sex partners of public employees in the state, according to an opinion issued Wednesday by Attorney General Mike Cox," the Detroit Free Press reports. Polls prior to last November's election suggest that banning partner benefits for state employees wasn't what a majority in Michigan thought they were voting for, but that's what they got.
As reader "Guy" commented on my previous posting:
In Michigan and Ohio, polls also showed majority support for DPs [domestic partnerships] or CUs [civil unions] with majority opposition to marriage, but when marriage and CUs were put together in a ballot initiative, the whole thing won. That's the danger of opening the door.
I read on another site the question, why not just let Massachusetts sit for a couple years so the country can see it's no big deal? I don't have an answer, except that Lambda (which I in all other respects support) see this as a big fundraising/visibility issue. But is it good politics? Dubious.
Alas, the "class interests" of activists (as a lefty might put it) are not necessarily the same as the class interests of the rest of us.
Meanwhile, on the federal front, when asked at Wednesday's
press conference about the California same-sex marriage
decision and whether it would add fire to the proposed "marriage
protection amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, President Bush
said:
"the court rulings are verifying why I took the position I took, and that is I don't believe judges ought to be deciding this issue. I believe this is an issue of particular importance to the American people and should be decided by the people. And I think the best way to do so is through the constitutional process.... As a matter of fact, court rulings such as this strengthen my position.... People now understand why I laid out the position I did....
And no matter what your position is on the issue, this is an issue that should be decided by the people, not by judges.... This is a very important issue for the country and one that obviously needs to be conducted with a great deal of sensitivity and concern about other people's feelings.
In other words, "Yes."