It was a classic bait-and-switch. When gay-rights opponents sought to amend Michigan's constitution to prohibit, not only same-sex marriage, but also "similar union[s] for any purpose," they told us that the amendment was not about taking away employment benefits. They told us that in their speeches. They told us that in their campaign literature. They told us that in their commercials.
They lied.
The initiative passed, the constitution was amended, and before the ink was dry the opponents changed their tune and demanded that municipalities and state universities revoke health-insurance benefits for same-sex domestic partners.
For a while it looked like we might win this battle. In a trial court opinion Judge Joyce Draganchuk argued that "health care benefits are not benefits of marriage and cannot be construed as 'benefits of marriage' that are prohibited by [the amendment]."
Last week the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed Draganchuk's decision and ordered an end to health-care benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. They leaned heavily on the reasoning of Attorney General Mike Cox, who argued that the operative clause of the amendment--that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose"--is "best interpreted as prohibiting the acknowledgement of both same-sex relationships and unmarried opposite-sex relationships. More simply, the only relationship that may be given any recognition or acknowledgment of validity is the union of one man and one woman in marriage."
But that is not quite what the amendment says. To see why, consider another relationship to which we give "recognition or acknowledgment of validity": the parent-child relationship. Most employers, including state employers, provide health insurance for employees' children, and their doing so does not run afoul of the amendment. The reason is simple: contra Cox, the amendment does not prohibit recognizing relationships other than marriage. It prohibits recognizing them "as a marriage or similar union." Giving health insurance to your employees' domestic partners does not entail that you recognize their relationship "as a marriage or similar union" any more than giving it to their children entails you recognize the parent-child relationship as "a marriage or similar union."
On the other hand, let's be real. The reason certain employers give health-insurance benefits to the same-sex domestic partners (and typically not to the opposite-sex domestic partners) of their employees is precisely because they recognize these relationships as being similar to marriage in relevant ways. Employers know that it is good for employees to have someone at home whose job it is to take care of them (and vice-versa), and gay employees are no different in this respect than anyone else.
Given the makeup of the Michigan Supreme Court, our chance of winning this on appeal is about as good as that of Mike Cox marrying Antonin Scalia. Which means that unless and until the constitution is re-amended (something that won't happen easily), state employers will no longer be able to offer domestic-partner benefits.
This result is tragic for several reasons. It means that people will lose their health insurance. It means that gay employees who availed themselves of these benefits will effectively take a pay cut. And it means that Michigan's state universities, among other state employers, will be less competitive for top talent.
Remember: the people who fought for this assured us that none of this would happen, then they worked hard to make it happen. Family values, indeed.
In his eloquent dissent to Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, "It took but three years for the Court to see the error of its analysis in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and to recognize that the threat to national cohesion posed by a refusal to salute the flag was vastly outweighed by the threat to those same values posed by compelling such a salute. I can only hope that here, too, the Court soon will reconsider its analysis and conclude that depriving individuals of the right to choose for themselves how to conduct their intimate relationships poses a far greater threat to the values most deeply rooted in our Nation's history than tolerance of nonconformity could ever do."
It took not three years, but seventeen, for Blackmun's vision to be realized, when in its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas the Court repudiated its earlier position in Bowers. I wept that day with relief and joy. I can only hope that I'll live long enough to shed similar tears at the news that Michigan corrected course and repealed this awful amendment.
Until then, I'm going to work like hell to make it happen. The liars are on notice.
22 Comments for “A Tragic Lie in Michigan”
posted by Bill from FL on
Another brilliant piece by Jon Corvino! Very interesting. Here in FL when they passed a DP Benefits ordinance in South FL Central/North FL state legislators introduced bills banning tax dollar use for those benefits, among other bans. So much for local control!
Here is an excerpt of what they posted at “Marriagedebate.com”. Wonder how much water this holds and if it’s true what will happen if they try and pass laws to meet the M C of A’s ruling.
“….Finally, the court said that the amendment does not ?selectively target[] same-sex couples? because it applies to any unmarried relationship. The court concluded that the amendment ?does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship.?
posted by BostonJeremy on
wow, he can publish into the future!
posted by Fitz on
“It was a classic bait-and-switch. When gay-rights opponents sought to amend Michigan?s constitution to prohibit, not only same-sex marriage, but also ?similar union[s] for any purpose,? they told us that the amendment was not about taking away employment benefits. They told us that in their speeches. They told us that in their campaign literature. They told us that in their commercials. They lied.
Or are you?
I?m from Michigan and the campaign for our marriage amendment was like many around the country at that time. People knew it was both a definitional amendment and prevented civil unions.
Their was not much talk of existing benefits (plus people did not even know that same-sex couples were receiving marriage benefits with state money- That was all on the QT to begin with and recently enacted)
But the problem is soon evident when without a way to distinguish between what benefits are to be removed and which are not, he winds up complaining when any benefits are taken. And he winds up thinking that no benefits were meant to be removed, which is ludicrous.
just what benefits do you mean explicitely when you use such vague language such as “benefits”.
This article makes the distinction based not on the benefits offered, but the program offering the benefits. The judicial decision makes a distinction not on the benefits offered, but the program instituted to give the benefits through. A phrase like “benefits” can mean both, so I’m asking what you mean. Do you mean the benefits themselves or the program used to present the benefits?
I watched the campaign in Michigan quite intensley.No whole sale calims were made about benifits on the pro-marriage side. If asked the question one would useually aver to “private companies” rather than “state benifits under rubrics similar to marriage”
People in Michigan knew what they were voting for. There was no whole sale or grand scheme to decieve the public.. (who would not have been against this anyway, regardless, just like Wisconsin!)
People want to protect marriage from imitations..they want to keep it between a man & a women…
They dont see any reason same-sex couples should get health benifits with their tax money when their Brother or Mother cannot.
posted by Josiah Blaisdell on
You know stuff like this makes me feel the need to wonder as to why its so hard to simply allow gay couples to marry!
usually i tend to take on the point of view that leans toward just forgetting about the problem due to my personal belief that worrying about gay marriage is like worrying about a scratch on your body when your bleeding out of every oraface… But, in a case like this it seems apparent that three serious fractures within the government are “coming out” so to speak.
1. freedom being compromised; “When gay-rights opponents sought to amend Michigan?s constitution to prohibit, not only same-sex marriage, but also ?similar union[s] for any purpose,”
2. corruption in our government is being made public; “Remember: the people who fought for this assured us that none of this would happen, then they worked hard to make it happen. Family values, indeed.”
3. The weakness of the American state is being revealed; ?It took but three years for the Court to see the error of its analysis… It took not three years, but seventeen, for Blackmun?s vision to be realized”
And this is about something simple; gay marriage, what the hell is America going to do when it’s hit with bigger issues if it can’t even deal with the little ones in a timely, organized fashion.
food for thought?
posted by Audrey B. on
This article makes the distinction based not on the benefits offered, but the program offering the benefits. The judicial decision makes a distinction not on the benefits offered, but the program instituted to give the benefits through. A phrase like “benefits” can mean both, so I’m asking what you mean. Do you mean the benefits themselves or the program used to present the benefits?Fitz has a large supply of high-tech lasers, which he uses primarily to split hairs.
posted by Fitz on
“Fitz has a large supply of high-tech lasers, which he uses primarily to split hairs.”
Yes, I do… Its called having been to law school. The distinction I point to is a very LARGE one. Hardly a hair, but rather a whole head of hair.
It underlines all the amendments that seek to protect a distinct institution called marriage from imitations.
posted by Bill from FL on
“It was a classic bait-and-switch. When gay-rights opponents sought to amend Michigan?s constitution to prohibit, not only same-sex marriage, but also ?similar union[s] for any purpose,? they told us that the amendment was not about taking away employment benefits. They told us that in their speeches. They told us that in their campaign literature. They told us that in their commercials. They lied.
Or are you?
I?m from Michigan and the campaign for our marriage amendment was like many around the country at that time. People knew it was both a definitional amendment and prevented civil unions.
Their was not much talk of existing benefits (plus people did not even know that same-sex couples were receiving marriage benefits with state money- That was all on the QT to begin with and recently enacted)
–People knew it was a “definitional amendment” but you know that the average person doesn’t scrutinize or interpret the often confusing language of ballot initiatives! IF they even bother to vote on it! Of course, that is their own stupidity but it’s a reality. DP benefits enacted on the QT? What, in a back room somewhere or in OPEN government functions subject to media and citizen examination. You probably didn’t hear much about it because it doesn’t make people go “yuck” and therefore sell papers!
But the problem is soon evident when without a way to distinguish between what benefits are to be removed and which are not, he winds up complaining when any benefits are taken. And he winds up thinking that no benefits were meant to be removed, which is ludicrous.
–If your side really didn’t want to remove benefits, they could have worded the amendment that way. Where is the evidence that he thinks that NO benefits were to be removed?
just what benefits do you mean explicitely when you use such vague language such as “benefits”.
–What “benefits” is he talking about in that article? Are you reading this with one eye closed? Or are you just circling the airport?
This article makes the distinction based not on the benefits offered, but the program offering the benefits. The judicial decision makes a distinction not on the benefits offered, but the program instituted to give the benefits through. A phrase like “benefits” can mean both, so I’m asking what you mean. Do you mean the benefits themselves or the program used to present the benefits?
–Because the activist M court of App hasn’t YET addressed private non-state employers. And it DOES make a distinction based on the benefits offered, and to whom, and based on where they work! Wonder how long it will be before your side sues a company for offering DP benefits. I watched the campaign in Michigan quite intensley.No whole sale calims were made about benifits on the pro-marriage side. If asked the question one would useually aver to “private companies” rather than “state benifits under rubrics similar to marriage”
–Wholesale claims? The claims made above by your side look pretty broad to me, and it looks like BS! And the question WAS asked. And a lousy answer WAS given from people we expect honesty from?.the church!
People in Michigan knew what they were voting for. There was no whole sale or grand scheme to decieve the public.. (who would not have been against this anyway, regardless, just like Wisconsin!)
–Fair enough, if the VOTERS (not the general populace) actually READ it. If nothing else they did what they were told or thought they MUST do. Just like people knew what they were voting for with Bush, Clinton, and other ballot initiatives. Not enough people have VOTED against this Amendment and your side did an excellent job of whipping up hysteria and fear against us and using this issue. I wish we’d take lessons from you or were you doing so from the gay left? There is nothing worse than a ballot initiative to limit people’s rights or take them away. You can be smug about your victory all you want, but frankly in a brief word I think your side, SUCKS. Not to mention anti-liberty!
People want to protect marriage from imitations..they want to keep it between a man & a women…
They dont see any reason same-sex couples should get health benifits with their tax money when their Brother or Mother cannot.
–Protect marriage from imitations? No, people arrogantly and selfishly don’t bother looking at themselves as part of a problem usually. That includes you. So instead they SAY gays can live however we want but in reality demand our relationships get NO legal recognition, often even domestic violence law protection. Brothers and moms getting benefits is not the focus of partner-type benefits. My side was just saying “if husband and wife can have them, I should get them also, I have many if not all the same obligations morally if not legally” Is your side or the average person whining about moms and brothers not getting them? If so, why don’t they petition the government or company about this? And do most adults live with their moms and brothers and take financial responsibility thereof?
Fitz has a large supply of high-tech lasers, which he uses primarily to split hairs.”
Yes, I do… Its called having been to law school. The distinction I point to is a very LARGE one. Hardly a hair, but rather a whole head of hair.
–Well put audrey. You had to go to law school for that, Fitz? And I think you can admit it was a FEW hairs and not a whole head.
It underlines all the amendments that seek to protect a distinct institution called marriage from imitations.
–Imitations. Such an insulting comparison at a glance. Not surprising from someone who has been belching out the same religious right wing crap. But don’t worry even if my side succeeds people will still want and worship the original “brand name”! I wonder if Fitz thinks the Protestant marriage with birth control is the same as Roman Catholic where it’s tolerated quietly UHHHH prohibited.
posted by Audrey B. on
It underlines all the amendments that seek to protect a distinct institution called marriage from imitations. What Fitz is trying to say is “Damn queers, gettin’ all married and s#!t”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Well, as someone who was deeply involved in this campaign in Michigan, I can tell you we can chalk this one up to the Democrat Party activists who added the language to the proposal so as to draw out the support of DP advocates and help defeat the bill.
Those of us in the middle of the political spectrum said that change was stupid… the DP advocates would already be on the front line… tragically, like the Michigan Democrat leadership, the black community leadership, the environmentalists, the unions, the teachers, the universities… they all stayed home.
Bastards. We got what we deserved… time to severe our ties with anti-gay political allies… instead of keeping the bed warm for them over and over… like we have done for the Clintons even with DADT and DOMA.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
MM: “time to severe our ties with anti-gay political allies… instead of keeping the bed warm for them over and over… like we have done for the Clintons even with DADT and DOMA.”
It’s interesting what a different tune you sing here than you do over at gaypatriot. At least have the common decency to post under a different name so as to make your lies and hypocrisy a little less apparent. Sick.
posted by Brian Miller on
Amendments like this have two practical effects, both of which are detrimental to the states that have them.
1) They impoverish the state of necessary gay and lesbian talent and economic contributions. When Wisconsin had a similar result for its anti-gay amendment, openly gay sociology professors streamed out of the Uni of Wisconsin, reducing its once-top-rated sociology program to also-ran status.
Consider Michigan — it has UMich, a top-rated business school (which doubtlessly has many gay and lesbian professors and is doubtlessly attempting to recruit many more). Those professors are now better off at Harvard, Stanford, etc. As a result, the economic activity that grows from the university and spin-offs will go elsewhere. Students who want the best professors will go elsewhere. UMich will go from a leader to an also-ran.
Consider, further, the impact on the local economy. Both Ford and GM are in a difficult position right now, due to stodgy styling, product problems, and financial problems. Can those companies afford to have their design departments bereft of local talent? Who is goignt o want to go work in a state that’s loaded with anti-gay laws? Ford and GM will either have to open up facilities elsewhere in the country (taking away economic activity) or forego getting many of the best designers (further compounding their product problems). Since many of the top design instructors will forego Michigan public universities, the pool of local talent being trained will also be smaller and that much poorer.
Those are two major body blows for a state which is already an economic basket case — and which doubtlessly will demand a bailout via the federal government from more successful states that are fllled with the gay taxpayers who fled Michigan and helped deepen its crisis.
2) Consider also the legal ambuguities and problems this will cause. Michigan’s state and local budget crises will deepen as legislation regarding this change will plunge every level of government into endless litigation. Business that already viewed Michigan slightly askance will now avoid it like the plague. Taxes will increase, government spending on bigotry’s aftermath will soar, and more residents will move out — further driving Michigan into self-inflicted has-been status.
What is important for gay people in other states to do is stand firm against federal bailouts of states like Michigan, Ohio and Virgina that slip into financial crises. We should demand that before they get a dime of taxpayer money from other states, that they first undo the laws that helped put them in their basket-case status. If they refuse to do that, then they should be sympathetically but firmly told that they’ve made their own bed and that if they’re not willing to unmake it, they should lie in it.
posted by Brian Miller on
They dont see any reason same-sex couples should get health benifits with their tax money when their Brother or Mother cannot.
I have two problems with this argument:
1) It assumes that gay people aren’t also taxpayers;
2) The same people who talk about “my tax money shouldn’t go to support XYZ” strenuously object to the idea that gay people should be able to pay a lower tax rate since they don’t get equal access to various government “services.”
Ironically, gay and lesbian people pay some of the highest real tax rates in America. Dollar for dollar, we not only pay more (and get fewer deductions), but we’re also far less likely to consume the various “government services” that we’re paying for.
Gay wealth is redistributed to individuals whose own tax payments rarely cover the real costs of the services they consume — especially if they’re heterosexual single-earner married couples with kids. For them to complain that they don’t like to pay for gay peoples’ services is pretty rich when they’re the ones demanding those services for themselves in the first place, and see nothing wrong with demanding that middle-income, middle-class gay and lesbian couples pay through the nose to ensure that the heterosexual “families” get their government goodies.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ColoradoDysPatriot, sorry? I think that is entirely consistent with past comments here and elsewhere… we (the gay community in Michigan) were given a bum steer by the state Democrats who control the State Board of Canvassers.
We lost the initiative. We lost the opportunity to keep it narrow because the hotshot idiot strategists at the Party thought threatening DP benefits would bring out cities, universities, etc. It didn’t help us… it now is hurting us. Those of us on the GayGOP side told our brothers in gayhood that and they didn’t listen… just like little lapdogs, they’re more intent on keeping the bed warm for “gay allies” as long as the allies are on the Left.
We got screwed. We should remember that when the Dem leadership or black community or eco-fanatics or labor or schools or teachers’ unions or state employees want OUR help carrying their water on the next “big” issue.
What is intellectually dishonest about that?
Except your little drive by stunt at trying to smear me?
Right, thought so ColoDysPatriot.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ColoDysPatriot writes: “At least have the common decency to post under a different name so as to make your lies and hypocrisy a little less apparent. Sick.”
Sorry JibJab, I don’t follow the standard GayLeftBorg operating procedure. I’m not afraid of being held accountable, silly.
Rev up that engine for another drive-by somewhere else, ColoDysPatriot.
posted by Bobby on
“Can those companies afford to have their design departments bereft of local talent?”
—OH, I get it, it’s the “gays are gonna save the world” argument. Well honey, as someone who works in a creative field, I can tell you that gays are not the majority of any creative department, and I’ve worked in 3 of them.
Secondly, people who work in Michigan, Texas, California, and wherever do it for the money, not the politics. There’s plenty of gays starving in gay friendly states.
Thirdly, we’re a tiny minority, why would anyone care about our rights? Puh-leeze.
posted by John on
Our country’s founding fathers were very leery of the ignorance of the mob – otherwise known as the infinitely wise people. They tried to set up as many blocks and delays as possible. The Massachusetts Constitution, for example, grants legislators the right NOT to vote on petitions to ammend its constitution. Nevertheless, in the case of the ammendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions the supreme court of that state, while acknowledging the law, declared that it would nonetheless be “nice” if legislators ignored it. Talk about judicial activism. It did the trick and now the state is in for a totally unnesecarry and possibly nightmarish battle over something – gay marriage – that has caused absolutely no harm.
posted by New to Michigan on
I am a 30 year old gay man living in Ann Arbor. I moved here with my partner from Philadelphia, PA, in order so that he can attend the University of Michigan’s graduate school. I consider myself fairly moderate politically and vote for both Democrats and Libertarians. I break with the Republicans on too many issues, especially that of Iraq, so I do not vote for them.
There is a lot of talk on this site about the legality of benefits. For me, it is a very personal issue. When we moved here just this past year, I did not have a job and had the crappiest of health insurances in PA (that did not translate over to MI). I was able to get health benefits from my partner at the University. We have one of those official Ann Arbor “Domestic Partnership” which basically entitles us to live together in university housing and to also allow me to be on my partner’s health insurance policy. We’ve been together for over five years now and wish we could legalize our relationship. There are many reasons for this. First, I want to be able to be able to go to attend to my partner if he, God forbids, has to be admitted to the hospital (and vice versa). I want to be able to share health insurance. I want inheritance rights as heterosexual married couples.
What the courts of Michigan did was to effectively take away MY health benefits. Because of the profession that I am in, it was VERY difficult to obtain employment here. My current employer does not offer health benefits, as I am forced to be a “subcontractor”. While I love my job, I may be forced to leave in order to get health benefits as I have several health issues that need regular medical attention.
What I do not understand is why people feel the need to interfere in my life? I am a taxpayer (and so is my partner, even though he is a full-time student). Why do I get treated differently than other taxpayers?
I vow to only vote for candidates that promote at least domestic partnerships. This means that the majority of the Republican presidential hopefuls are no longer in my consideration.
I wish the gay community stood up a little more and demanded that our representatives actually represent our interests.
And, for those who believe that marriage is a “traditional”, “sanctified” institution, get over it! It is nothing more than a legally binding agreement between two people. Yes, religion is involved, but not always. There are plenty of irreligious people marrying. If it is a religious-based institution primarily, then our government should not provide any sort of civil benefit (health care rights, inheritance rights, hospital rights) to the couple. That would violate our separation of church and state….but wait! Didn’t the “evangelicals” already turn the USA in Jesusland?
posted by Brian Miller on
OH, I get it, it’s the “gays are gonna save the world” argument.
No, it’s the “gays represent almost $700 billion in annual buying power” argument.
You don’t drive out gay people any more than you drive out stockbrokers, or shopkeepers, or any other group of productive citizens.
Take a look at what states are thriving economically, and what states are basket cases. Take a look at the disciplines required to succeed in modern business. Both the states that are thriving economically, and the disciplines required for strong business performance are heavily populated with gay people.
Now, gay people alone aren’t going to “save” anything. But they do represent an important part of the overall economy. You can be proudly anti-gay and join states like Michigan, Alabama and Ohio — states with economies that have failed to produce anything of note in the 21st century knowledge economy, and that are reliant on “old fashioned” manufacturing industries that are in terminal decline. In that scenario, you get to have companies like General Motors (shrinking), Chrysler (shrinking), and Cracker Barrell (low wage part time jobs). Your greatest hope is that a new factory opens up that can hire about 1/2 the workers who were laid off from the last factory closure. All your best and brightest and unconventional thinkers all leave and go elsewhere.
Or, you can choose the open, tolerant, open-to-new-ideas approach, where new and unconventional ideas (and people) aren’t targeted with hate legislation. Then you get companies like Apple, Intel, AMD, Fidelity Investments, Kleiner-Perkins, and a host of other booming, growing companies. You get new startups and great job prospects and high property values and healthy tax revenues. . . see California, Massachusetts, and Arizona.
Michigan, Ohio, Alabama, et al have made their own beds. They’d better lie in them quietly and not demand we fix their own self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head with bailout cash.
posted by Brian Miller on
What I do not understand is why people feel the need to interfere in my life? I am a taxpayer (and so is my partner, even though he is a full-time student). Why do I get treated differently than other taxpayers?
This is an argument with great merit and one that I bring up perpetually to people who go on and on about how they don’t want their tax dollars going to my “lifestyle.”
I reply that I feel the same way, and since my tax dollars are subsidizing their lifestyle but not mine, I shouldn’t have to pay those tax dollars. Then, suddenly, the conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike hand me some claptrap about how it’s my “social responsibility” to pay for their poor decisions (including kids they cannot afford) but it’s their right not to have to pay for any of my decisions — poor or otherwise.
That’s a losing argument. Single people, childless couples, gay families (with and without children) and others are all getting screwed over by these sorts of policies. If we made common cause, we could easily overturn anti-gay laws around the country.
I’m sorry to read of your plight, and only note that one of the things making your health care benefit purchase efforts difficult is government regulation of health benefits that forces people to buy coverage that they don’t need and bans them from buying basic coverage that’s more affordable. So you’re getting a double-whammy there.
My only advice is to consider taking a job in a state with a better economy and convincing your partner to do the same. It’s not really an economically great idea to invest so much of your life, including your time and your capital, in a place willing to tax the hell out of you and then pass laws against you.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
New2Michigan, I too live in Michigan and my partner and I have durable power of atty for medical issues, we have identified each other as beneficiaries in our wills, we’re both on the titles for our properties, etc. We took the steps needed to protect ourselves, our family. You can too.
While I understand your concern about health insurance, I don’t think employers ought to be responsible for providing health care coverage for employees, let alone spouses or partners; like welfare benefits, that policy ought to change dramatically and be a private choice issue and not funded by corps, biz, or taxpayer-funded institutions.
I’m glad to read you intend to hold politicians accountable for their lack of support for gay agenda items… how about the Dem Gov in Michigan? She hasn’t done jack for the “gay agenda”… whatever that is. How about the Dem House leaders? the Congressional leaders? No jack.
We’re no better off with Democrats or GOPers. You favor the Dems because it likely fits your social and political agenda and some fuzzy sense of a “gay-friendly” agenda.
I know the Dems are no better than the GOP… the Michigan Dems gave us the added language on Prop2 that allowed AttyGenCox to plead restrictions on university and local govt benefits. The MiDems did it in order to pull locals and university antagonists to the polls to defeat Prop2. It didn’t work, eh?
I think we’ve got a lot of GayLeft leaders shilling for the Dems and Prop2 is an excellent example –if we needed more examples than just the last 4 yrs in Michigan.
Where are all those great gay-friendly Dem leaders? When are they going to act on your behalf? And how many elections will you support them before you realize they are no different than GOP leaders?
posted by Brian Miller on
like welfare benefits, that policy ought to change dramatically and be a private choice issue
It is a private choice issue — a choice that many employers choose to offer their employees, and a contract written between employers and their employees.
In short, it’s a form of compensation that employers offer their employees. Well, unless they’re public institutions in Michigan, in which case the “majority” believes it can void their contract and declare that homosexual folks are banned from full and fair contracting with their employers (and their partners) alike.
not funded by corps, biz, or taxpayer-funded institutions.
You have the right to advance an alternative theory. You don’t have the right to force your theory on others — especially gay people by themselves — through the law.
Where are all those great gay-friendly Dem leaders?
Living in a fantasy world having tea with King Arthur and “gay friendly Republicans.”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Brian, except that these “benefits” in question were not simply between a private employer and the employee… they were between a tax-funded, public body (universities, local govts etc) and usually unionized labor members. How is striking down a union-secured benefit NOT the right thing to do? Even if the one or more of the parties are gay? We all have to sacrafice, right?
The main point was that the all those great Dem “gay-friendly” leaders who added the language to the Proposal weren’t doing us a favor… and it’s time to stop carrying their water. You bail and tote it if you want; I’m not a victim forever held hostage on the Democrat Plantation with blacks, urban mayors, poor people, Jews, eco-terrorists or the others.