Virginia looks like it may pass, with bipartisan support, a law giving hospital patients explicit authority to choose their visitors. It's a small step, but even anti-gay conservatives seem to be onboard since it's not being promoted as a gay rights bill. As the Washington Post reports, Virginia Assembly Delegate David Englin, a Democrat who sponsored the measure, emphasized that it carries a "broad purpose" that goes beyond gay rights. Still:
[Englin] said that granting protections to same-sex couples is, in his view, an added benefit. In fact, Englin said it was just such a scenario that inspired him to introduce the bill. Last year at a forum about the marriage amendment, Englin met Mike Rankin, a psychiatrist in Arlington County who was denied the right to visit his dying partner in a Seattle hospital because the man's ex-wife barred him from the facility.
"She had said a visit by me would be disruptive to his children and depressing to his children, so I was not allowed to visit," Rankin recalled. "All I knew was that I couldn't get in to see the man who had been the light of my life for six years."
A too-common scenario. Until we gain spousal recognition, these small steps can take us at least part of the way.
36 Comments for “Virginia Conservatives (Inadvertently) Support Something Good.”
posted by kittynboi on
I don’t know why this wasn’t the case before.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
But until the world in general becomes more compassionate, I’d say the ball’s in our court: Come on, guys and gals, get POWER OF ATTORNEY and have COPIES READY TO SUBMIT when your partner is hospitalized. Inevitably, some timid hospital administrator, somewhere, will cavil to hostile blood relatives in the absence of clear legal authority granted by the patient.
posted by Brian Miller on
The state is getting far too large and unwieldy and oppressive when we require a law to be passed to get “permission” from bureaucrats as to who may visit us when in a private hospital.
That’s a winning argument for gay people, but since it goes against the vogue of the moment in gay politics (“government is GREAT and will force everyone to love us!”), it goes ignored. To our ultimate detriment when the big, powerful government that results from statist policies turns around and does what Virginia did — banning powers of attorney, joint property ownership, and health care benefits for gay people.
It’s downright pathetic that people of any sexual orientation accept that level of interference in their own lives or in those of other people — and yes, the homophobes who passed the Virginia anti-gay law have welcomed the heavy hand of government regulation into their own lives too. The cries of pain and rage from conservatives when President Hillary decides that they’re not teaching their children “the right things” will be all the more ironic when one notes that it was the conservatives who created the precedents that will give President Hillary the power to overrule *their* own life decisions.
posted by Xeno on
Too little too late. If I was Rankin, I would have made a path to his love’s hospital room, and his ex-wife would most probably ‘disappear.’
Then again, if I was really him, I’d move out of that shithole of a state long before the trouble occurred. Virgina doesn’t deserve his tax dollars (and neither do the feds for that matter).
Greg Capaldini:
Come on, guys and gals, get POWER OF ATTORNEY and have COPIES READY TO SUBMIT when your partner is hospitalized. Inevitably, some timid hospital administrator, somewhere, will cavil to hostile blood relatives in the absence of clear legal authority granted by the patient.
We’re talking about Virgina here, we’re they passed an amendment that may likely overrule powers of attorney. Besides, powers of attorney cost more money than acquiring a marriage certificate.
posted by Xeno on
Dang. Scratch the ‘we’re’ for where in the previous post. Can’t believe I made such a grammatical mistake.
posted by Bill from FL on
YOU WATCH! The right wing will rip this one off of the Governor’s desk and take it to court and use it as a test case for their stupid “Marriage Affirmation Amendment”!
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Brian Miller, all I can say is “RIGHT ON!!!”
But, Brian, you’ve given me fodder for many future nightmares with Hillary as President . . . Yikes!
posted by Mark Patro on
In response to:
The state is getting far too large and unwieldy and oppressive when we require a law to be passed to get “permission” from bureaucrats as to who may visit us when in a private hospital.
We are not ?getting permission? from bureaucrats. We are attempting to deny them the power to act in detrimental ways against us. And if it prevents one bigot from using that power it is a useful law.
Your version of Libertarianism will never work, because on its face and in its heart it is anarchy. If we don?t attempt control hurtful behavior, the ?fag? in the school yard is susceptible to his beating because the Big Bad Government is not there to protect him. And granted your argument will be that the law does not prevent the beating but it might prevent a second or third one.
Your ?free from powerful government? argument would work if people naturally acquiesced to what is the right way to treat people, but that is not in human nature. There always has been a struggle between ?what is right? and what the people want. Granting women the right to vote, freeing the slaves and allowing mixed-race marriages would have never happened in this country if it were not for the Big Bad Government.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
“Besides, powers of attorney cost more money than acquiring a marriage certificate.” But they cost less than a weekend vacation to the hills or to the islands. It’s an example of prioritizing.
“We’re talking about Virgina here, we’re they passed an amendment that may likely overrule powers of attorney.” I don’t buy this. Do the POA, folks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
We’re talking about Virgina here, we’re they passed an amendment that may likely overrule powers of attorney.
Right. The Supreme Court of the State of Virginia is going to invalidate every existing power of attorney in the state because power of attorney is restricted only to marriage.
Uh huh.
But they cost less than a weekend vacation to the hills or to the islands. It’s an example of prioritizing.
Absolutely. Gay leftists always whine about how it’s too expensive to get wills and powers of attorney made, but never seem to care a whit about the millions of dollars they burn through annually filing fruitless lawsuits in every conceivable court to try to get marriage.
It would only seem logical that gays who really cared about securing legal benefits and protections for their relationship would focus first on accessing and expanding existing ones. But the battle for marriage is an ideological one….and logic never reigns there.
posted by Xeno on
Right. The Supreme Court of the State of Virginia is going to invalidate every existing power of attorney in the state because power of attorney is restricted only to marriage.
Not every existing power of attorney of course, but you obviously haven’t even bothered to read the new section of the constitution, so let’s have a look at it, shall we?
http://legis.state.va.us/Laws/search/Constitution.htm#1S15A
Read the bold print dumbass.
Since the powers of attorney is a legal status, the constitution of Virginia prohibits them if and only if they mimic the benefits of marriage for unmarried couples. In the case of a couple getting power of attorney, then it would be invalid in the state of Virginia because their relationship.
As for the Supreme Court of Virginia overturning that amendment, they don’t have the power to do that.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Since the powers of attorney is a legal status, the constitution of Virginia prohibits them if and only if they mimic the benefits of marriage for unmarried couples.
LOL…..so how do you tell the difference?
By that logic, since a mother and son can’t marry, obviously his getting a power of attorney for her would be an attempt to approximate marriage for a relationship which is legally denied marriage rights — and would thus be invalidated.
By that logic, since a man who is already married to one woman cannot marry another, his getting a financial power of attorney for his female business partner would be an attempt to approximate polygamous marriage and would thus be invalid.
Since two men or two women getting a power of attorney is obviously a gay or lesbian couple trying to create a marriage, all powers of attorney between two people of the same gender in Virginia are automatically invalidated.
Am I getting the hang of this non-reality based world now?
Powers of attorney require no relationship and they imply no relationship other than that specifically spelled out within them. They are granted as part of marriage, but they in no way constitute marriage in and of themselves — and indeed, they can be partially or completely revoked within marriage by pre- or post-nuptial agreements.
Furthermore, are you aware of Virginia’s existing Marriage Affirmation Act, in place since 2004?
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 20-45.3 as follows:
posted by Brian Miller on
We are not ?getting permission? from bureaucrats. We are attempting to deny them the power to act in detrimental ways against us.
Nonsense. You’re begging the same government that just declared your family a stranger to the law for permission to at least let your “legally not a family” visit you in the hospital.
Your version of Libertarianism will never work, because on its face and in its heart it is anarchy.
Yeah, I know. I mean, without bureaucrats to regulate whether or not we can see our spouses in the hospital, the family unit would fall apart.
Your preferred choice of begging bigoted busybodies to regulate your relationship is obviously vastly superior to a live-and-let live approach — which is why Virginia has become such a bastion of gay family life.
Hmmm. Perhaps that would be a good starting point for a surrealist novel? 😉
posted by Brian Miller on
Since two men or two women getting a power of attorney is obviously a gay or lesbian couple trying to create a marriage, all powers of attorney between two people of the same gender in Virginia are automatically invalidated.
Am I getting the hang of this non-reality based world now?
You’re using the same hissy, dismissive, incredulous tone that Republican supporters of the Michigan anti-gay amendment used when people pointed out that said amendment would end DP benefits for thousands of people. I hope, for the sake of gay families in Virginia (and not at all for the sake of your Republican politics) that you’re right for a change on this.
But something tells me that if your right-wing allies were happy to go and revoke the benefits of gay couples in Michigan using loopholes in the law, they’ll also happily revoke the other family arrangements of gay folks in Virginia also using the law. It’s a curious group of people you’re choosing to defend here.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You’re using the same hissy, dismissive, incredulous tone that Republican supporters of the Michigan anti-gay amendment used when people pointed out that said amendment would end DP benefits for thousands of people.
Actually, the dismissive tone came out when people tried to argue that the amendment would bar any company, public or private, from offering domestic partner benefits.
The reason why that is untrue — and what the real problem is — becomes immediately apparent when you actually READ the decision.
Especially this blurb on page 8, which really is the crux of the issue:
Three of the four plans provided in the record (University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and the City of Kalamazoo) require the domestic partners to have registered, declared, signed, or filed a domestic partnership agreement to establish entitlements to benefits. A public employer that requires proof of the existence of a formal domestic partnership agreement to establish eligibility for benefits ?recognizes? the validity of a same-sex union as reflected in the ?agreement? for the ?purpose? of providing the same benefits to a same-sex couple that would be provided to a married couple.
In short, the problem is with the plan design, not the law; the lying leftist “Pride At Work” organization, which is actually an arm of the AFL-CIO and was involved in building these plans, screwed them up.
And why is that important?
Page 15:
The amendment as written does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship.
Now, do you see that, Mr. Miller? The amendment does NOT prevent the extension of benefits — as long as a recognition of relationship is not required.
Or, in other words, if you don’t have to form a domestic partner agreement, register as domestic partners, or make other public legal declaration as a requirement of getting benefits, it’s within the law.
That’s why private employers in the state of Michigan are not being required to give up their plans. Unlike the state plans, which are the work of incompetent Democrat bureaucrats and unions who have no concept of business or benefits law, these companies actually solicited the help of experts (like yours truly) who can tell them what they can and cannot put into their benefits plans and remain within the law. We’ve been doing it for years, and employers that actually CARE about their employees have been taking that extra step of making sure that their plans DON’T run afoul of state laws.
But the unions and the Democrat-controlled bureaucracy don’t want to admit that they’re the ones who screwed up — so they yank on the leashes of their gay leftists and send them out running into the street to spread disinformation as a cover for their incompetence.
posted by Brian Miller on
The amendment does NOT prevent the extension of benefits — as long as a recognition of relationship is not required.
Or, in other words, if you don’t have to form a domestic partner agreement, register as domestic partners, or make other public legal declaration as a requirement of getting benefits, it’s within the law.
That’s a classic homophobe’s tactic, enshrined neatly into law. It basically says “as long as you renounce your partner as your partner, and sign this document stating that you’re not in any sort of relationship, we’ll give you the benefits.”
It has the added bonus of effectively shutting off the DP benefits too, since the entire “purpose” of employers offering the benefits was to provide spousal/partner coverage for people who weren’t married (for whatever reason).
But it does provide a useful fig leaf for folks to argue the Republican Party line, I’ll hand you that.
That’s why private employers in the state of Michigan are not being required to give up their plans.
The reason private employers aren’t being required to give up their plans is because the amendment applies only to government, not the private sector. It mandates that government may not treat gay relationships as marriage “in any way,” hence the right wing argument that DP benefits from public institutions are now illegal.
If your buddies in the GOP (and a number of Democrats) had their wet dream moment, they’d have passed an amendment banning private sector benefits too — but they knew that was a losing proposition. They even argued that they didn’t oppose public sector DP benefits with the present law in order to get it passed.
Then, what was the first thing they did when it became law?
They went to court to get DP benefits annulled for public employees who are in same-sex relationships.
You can try to weave and bob around that simple fact with a tortured game of legalese, or you can recognize the actual intent and actions of your friends in the Republican Party and their Democratic cohorts as the sort of nasty, mean-spirited politics that characterizes the homophobe’s cognitive reality.
posted by Brian Miller on
the unions and the Democrat-controlled bureaucracy don’t want to admit that they’re the ones who screwed up
Oh no doubt. But Republicans who supported (and continue to support) the calamitous war in Iraq aren’t exactly on the best of terms for slamming other folks for coverups after pigheaded obstinance and ignorance leads to disaster. 😉
We Libertarians, as usual, were right all along in opposing the bill in all of its forms and supporting fully out and equal treatment for all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people under the law. That’s a record that requires no obfuscation, excuses, or dozens of multiparagraph posts to “convey nuance.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s a classic homophobe’s tactic, enshrined neatly into law. It basically says “as long as you renounce your partner as your partner, and sign this document stating that you’re not in any sort of relationship, we’ll give you the benefits.”
Let’s see….so you and your fellow leftist gays would rather go without benefits than have their granting being conditioned on something other than your partnership.
Or, in short, “Unless you recognize us as married, we don’t want benefits”.
I kind of figured you were ideology-driven, but to have it confirmed so nicely is rather amusing.
How many other gays do you think will give up their domestic partner benefits because their companies are staying within the law and NOT requiring legal recognition of their partner status to give them benefits?
posted by John on
“I kind of figured you were ideology-driven, but to have it confirmed so nicely is rather amusing.”
That coming from you? haha
It’s funny that every time you scold someone for something , you’ve already done it at least several times yourself. now
posted by Brian Miller on
“Unless you recognize us as married, we don’t want benefits”
That’s not correct. No locality in Michigan recognizes gay marriage, nor does the state itself, nor was a gay marriage or civil certification required to get the DP benefits that were revoked, so not only is your argument rather odd, but it’s especially irrelevant to the situation in MI.
I kind of figured you were ideology-driven
What I am is rather irrelevant. You Republicrat true believers have difficulty not only maintaining a consistent, logical argument, but also a fetish for personalizing every argument that you’re decisively losing.
You guys distort the other person’s position, try and make cut-and-dry homophobia from your parties into “nuanced, logical positions,” and then throw out hateful barbs at all those people who have the temerity to stick to the facts.
Fortunately, that era of bullying, screaming and personal attacks that characterize your brand of politics is coming to a close. That’s no small blessing for the gay citizens of this country!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My suggestion, John, is that, rather than taking a petty Pythian shot in defense of someone who is plainly wrong just because you don’t like me, you evaluate what I am pointing out.
The tendency of gays like yourself to disparage those of us who don’t hew to the standard gay victimization ideology and instead have used our expertise to inquire as to why these things happen and how to prevent them is why these sort of things continue to be a problem.
In short, if you weren’t too proud to ask how to make benefits plans compliant with Michigan law, people there might still have them. But instead, you stuck with your Democrat and union masters rather than talk to one of us heretics, and you’re now screwed.
posted by Brian Miller on
rather than taking a petty Pythian shot in defense of someone who is plainly wrong just because you don’t like me
Oh yes, it’s all about you.
Poor, tortured ND30 — so thoroughly victimized by those damn empiricists!
posted by Brian Miller on
if you weren’t too proud to ask how to make benefits plans compliant with Michigan law
Once again, another useless personal attack covering up for the fact that your argument is wrong.
“Michigan law” says nothing about marriage other than it, and civil unions, never existed. Marriage and civil unions weren’t required for DP benefits, and in fact couldn’t be, since they weren’t available.
And go ahead and ask the cohorts in your party who sued to have the benefits overturned if their objection was what you claim it is. Even they will be characterizing your position as the contorted miasma of Republicratic apologia that it so clearly is.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That’s not correct. No locality in Michigan recognizes gay marriage, nor does the state itself, nor was a gay marriage or civil certification required to get the DP benefits that were revoked, so not only is your argument rather odd, but it’s especially irrelevant to the situation in MI.
Obviously you didn’t read the court brief which I linked, or the section from page 8 of it which I cited in my previous post.
Three of the four plans provided in the record (University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and the City of Kalamazoo) require the domestic partners to have registered, declared, signed, or filed a domestic partnership agreement to establish entitlements to benefits.
Such as the domestic partner registry of the city of Ann Arbor, which is a civil certification of a union similar to marriage by a legal entity in the state of Michigan.
And the reason that private plans are not hit by this is because they, designed by experts like myself rather than ideologues like you, do not require you to have a legally-registered partnership agreement in order to access benefits — which the court ALSO clearly stated was permissible.
Republicans to you are like witches were to the people of the Middle Ages — a convenient excuse for everything ranging from bad luck to your own stupidity.
In this case, it’s the latter.
posted by Brian Miller on
Obviously you didn’t read the court brief which I linked, or the section from page 8 of it which I cited in my previous post
I read it all and am familiar with the issues involved. I’m not taking issue with the facts — I am taking issue with your mischaracterization of them.
the domestic partner registry of the city of Ann Arbor, which is a civil certification of a union similar to marriage by a legal entity in the state of Michigan
Kindly cite the public institutions that required gay couples to get certified by a public body, such as the City of Ann Arbor, in order to receive DP benefits.
posted by Brian Miller on
Republicans to you are like witches were to the people of the Middle Ages
Nah, they’re closer to people who were doing the witch-burning — especially in the case of gay and lesbian people.
posted by Brian Miller on
BTW, I’ve just found the old DP benefit policy for the University of Michigan, which required individuals to prove a 1-year relationship either through common address or bank account.
No mention of requiring individuals to be civilly registered anywhere — yet UMich has ended its DP policy.
Please explain why, in your “expert” opinion, this is the case.
posted by Brian Miller on
Goodness, it also looks like most public universities also didn’t require any sort of government certification in order to make DP benefits available — yet theirs were also stricken.
So again, ND, please explain why, if it’s only about civil unions.
Hello? ND?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
BTW, I’ve just found the old DP benefit policy for the University of Michigan, which required individuals to prove a 1-year relationship either through common address or bank account.
You have? Then why don’t you publish it to the internets with a link?
I think I know why.
If you are eligible for benefits at the University of Michigan, you can cover your same-sex domestic partner. To be eligible, you and your partner must:
— Be of the same sex; and
— Not be legally married to another individual; and
— Not be related to each other by blood in a manner that would bar marriage; and
—Have registered or declared the Domestic Partnership in the manner authorized by a municipality or other government entity; and
–Have allowed at least six months to pass since the dissolution of a previous same-sex domestic partnership in the manner authorized by a municipality or other government entity.
In short, I provided the link; you didn’t.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And, in case you were wondering why I specifically referenced the city of Ann Arbor, here’s why (from the above link):
If your partnership is entered in the city of Ann Arbor, you will be required to complete a Declaration of Domestic Partnership. This form must be notarized by a notary public and signed by two witnesses; the notary can serve as one of those witnesses. Please note: The Ann Arbor Clerk’s Office records the notarization date as the beginning date of the registered partnership. Newly eligible dependents must be added to your coverage within 30 days. Therefore, it is important to remember the 30-day “clock starts ticking” as of the notarization date; not the date your Declaration of Domestic partnership is filed with the City Clerk’s Office. Other municipalities may have differing rules.) You must complete and return required benefits change forms along with a copy of the registration or notarized uniform declaration form provided by a City Clerk?s office to make this addition.
In other words, I have an excellent grasp of the situation and know exactly about what I’m talking.
But here, Mr. Miller, that doesn’t count, because I don’t hew to the leftist gay victim ideology of you and your fellows. And because you don’t like me, you ignore what I say — blundering into foolish and inane mistakes like this.
posted by Brian Miller on
If your partnership is entered in the city of Ann Arbor, you will be required to complete a Declaration of Domestic Partnership.
Yet again, the anti-gay law invalidated ALL DP benefits, not just those for folks “required” to register in a particular city.
In other words, if I lived outside Ann Arbor and couldn’t “register,” my benefits were still nuked under the law.
You keep dodging this key point while throwing out literary excrement about leftist ideology (when, as I’ve noted in past dust-ups with you, I’m likely far more conservative on key issues than you are).
Stick to the point — again, if this law only applies to people who were told to “register,” how come *everyone* who worked for an institution, including those who didn’t require any registration or couldnt register, lose their benefits?
Go on, Google a bit more and march back peacockishly — but make sure that your fifth attempt actually answers the original question asked (which you still haven’t done).
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I think you need a reminder, Mr. Miller.
Your claim:
BTW, I’ve just found the old DP benefit policy for the University of Michigan, which required individuals to prove a 1-year relationship either through common address or bank account.
No mention of requiring individuals to be civilly registered anywhere — yet UMich has ended its DP policy.
For which you provided neither a link or reference.
Meanwhile, I cited the actual domestic partner policy for the University of Michigan, which specifically states (emphasis mine):
If you are eligible for benefits at the University of Michigan, you can cover your same-sex domestic partner. To be eligible, you and your partner must:
— Be of the same sex; and
— Not be legally married to another individual; and
— Not be related to each other by blood in a manner that would bar marriage; and
—Have registered or declared the Domestic Partnership in the manner authorized by a municipality or other government entity; and
–Have allowed at least six months to pass since the dissolution of a previous same-sex domestic partnership in the manner authorized by a municipality or other government entity.
In short, your assumption, which carries no reference or link, is clearly contradicted by my linked and referenceable document.
And the answer to your question is simple, Mr. Miller; if people weren’t registered, they weren’t eligible for benefits. That was the point of the policy, and why it says, “To be eligible, you and your partner must“. It had nothing to do with the law; it was UM policy that you be registered in order to be eligible.
This is entirely consistent with the court’s very clear statement.
Three of the four plans provided in the record (University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and the City of Kalamazoo) require the domestic partners to have registered, declared, signed, or filed a domestic partnership agreement to establish entitlements to benefits.
Also note that, despite your leftist assumption that the law nukes all benefits plans, please note the very clear statement of the court:
The amendment as written does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship.
Of course, the Democrats and leftists who hold your leash probably saw this as a golden opportunity to save money; they simply got rid of the plans themselves, and told gay leftists like you that the mean old court and Republicans had taken them away, knowing that you would never actually look anything up or do anything but take their word on faith.
posted by Brian Miller on
The amendment as written does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship
Which means nothing, because in order to extend DP benefits, a relationship must be declared. That’s how DP benefits work.
One cannot have any sort of DP benefit without “some recognition of the relationship that exists,” because then any old joe could get DP benefits for his neighbor across the street, or his mom in another state, or whatever.
By inserting that amendment, as you well know, they’ve invalidated any possibility of public institutions offering DP benefits in that state. For the sake of your remaining tattered shreds of credibility, please stop pretending otherwise. I’m becoming even more embarrassed for you.
the Democrats and leftists who hold your leash
Oh ND, have you forgotten who I am already?
To refresh your memory, I’m a Libertarian. And I am far harsher on Democrats on questions of gay rights than you, because while you use shallow hyperbole and hysterical talking points, I point to the facts.
Here’s a quick example.
Looking forward to your next GOP talking point. It should be as amusing as Democrats’ insistence that they’re fighting for gay rights. 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
One cannot have any sort of DP benefit without “some recognition of the relationship that exists,” because then any old joe could get DP benefits for his neighbor across the street, or his mom in another state, or whatever.
Ah, but you see, Mr. Miller, that’s legal recognition. Plans that only require that you share the same address, or that you have a joint checking account, or whatnot, do not involve legal recognition of a relationship — since any two people can share the same address, both be listed on a lease, jointly own a house, or create a joint account, or all sorts of other things that do not require you to be in a sexual relationship with each other.
Sure, that opens up the possibility that you’ll insure your roommate, or your mother who lives with you, but honestly, we don’t care; the underwriting costs much the same, the tax implications are the same, and frankly, it’s a recruiting benefit that you allow a wide spectrum of people to register for this additional coverage. In fact, we don’t even call it “domestic partner” benefits any more; we call it “additional resident coverage”, since so many people were using it anyway to cover their roommates.
The simple fact of the matter is that your incompetent leftist and Democrat masters don’t know how to write benefit plans that comply with law, and in fact, screwed you over. But you and your fellow puppet gays dance on command for them, covering up their ineptness and malice and blaming it all on Republicans — whose businesses, incidentally, have been able to merrily go right on offering domestic partner benefits, despite your leftist claim that this amendment “nuked” all partner benefit plans in Michigan.
And as for your claim of “pointing to the facts”, I provide this example:
BTW, I’ve just found the old DP benefit policy for the University of Michigan, which required individuals to prove a 1-year relationship either through common address or bank account.
No mention of requiring individuals to be civilly registered anywhere — yet UMich has ended its DP policy.
That is directly contradicted by my live link.
Despite your supposed devotion to facts, you have done nothing but hurl insults when asked to provide proof of your claim, while I have demonstrated directly from where mine come with clear links to both the court decision in question and to the UM benefit plan.
posted by Brian Miller on
but you see, Mr. Miller, that’s legal recognition
Really?
So if I introduce someone as my partner, I’m providing him with legal recognition?
Wow, and here I was thinking that it requires government certification.
Incidentally, your own link indicates that the UMich registration requirement only qualifies if it’s an available option, and even there it states that it’s not mandatory if the registration isn’t available. (I noted as much when I posted the criteria several posts ago).
Incidentally, on a totally separate note, I must say that I admire your ability to transform yourself into the victim here (“oh, I’m so insulted and victimized!”) when the *real* victims are the gay families who have lost their health care benefits — and had their employer-employee agreement overruled by. . . gasp. . . an activist judge.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Incidentally, your own link indicates that the UMich registration requirement only qualifies if it’s an available option, and even there it states that it’s not mandatory if the registration isn’t available.
Oh, you mean this section?
Regulations concerning registering a same-sex domestic partnership may vary between municipalities. The Ann Arbor City Council approved a Domestic Partnership Ordinance in 1991. See Registering Your Domestic Partnership for more information.
Many other municipalities and governmental entities recognize and register same-sex domestic partnerships meeting University of Michigan?s eligibility requirements. Registration in Ann Arbor is not a requirement. If your partnership satisfies the criteria outlined in the Eligibility section above, your partner is considered equivalent to a spouse for purpose of benefits.
In short, you have to be registered “in the manner authorized by a municipality or other government entity”; however, it doesn’t have to be just the city of Ann Arbor.
(I noted as much when I posted the criteria several posts ago)
That was when you posted this:
BTW, I’ve just found the old DP benefit policy for the University of Michigan, which required individuals to prove a 1-year relationship either through common address or bank account.
No mention of requiring individuals to be civilly registered anywhere — yet UMich has ended its DP policy.
Again, this contradicts the clear and referenced link I have given, as I have already cited — while you have provided no link or reference, and instead, have continued to hurl insults.
Finally, don’t try to use the “gay families” to shield yourself. You yourself said above that you didn’t want the benefits offered unless they were part of marriage — and these weren’t.