The Freedom to Marry Coalition makes good use of the 40th anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia.
Meanwhile, Kalamazoo, Mich., has withdrawn health benefits from its employees' same-sex domestic partners as a result of the Michigan anti-marriage amendment passed in 2004. The state Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of a state Court of Appeals decision blocking same-sex benefits, but it also let the earlier decision take immediate effect. Expect more of this around the country.
And here's why this matters.
7 Comments for “Kalamazoo Story”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL……of course, what this leaves out is that the appeals court has already explained the problem — and stated a clear solution.
The problem (page 8):
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.
The solution (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.
Or, in other words, if you allow your benefits plans to be designed by people who actually know what they’re doing, it’s perfectly easy to extend benefits without breaking the law.
Heck, even the Michigan AFA tells you how to do it:
Glenn added, based on the amendment’s wording, public employers could still offer health benefits to homosexual employees, but that they would have to allow each employee ? gay or straight ? to be allowed to designate a beneficiary of his or her choice.
In other words, in order to offer benefits under the law, you have to allow ALL employees, married or unmarried, to designate whomever they like to receive health benefits.
What, exactly, is upsetting gay groups so much about that?
posted by Brian Miller on
What’s funny about the AFA’s position is that ultimately, people who would otherwise get government “marriage” will opt not to do so as people take their “advice.”
As a result, “marriage” will lose its special status as a government welfare program within a couple of years when the majority of married people — gay or straight — aren’t part of the government “institution.”
Especially in Michigan, where the law was recently interpreted to punish “adultery” with prison time as a felony by the state supreme court.
Seems to me that the fundies are doing an excellent job of destroying government “marriage” all by themselves, no?
posted by Fitz on
“The Freedom to Marry Coalition makes good use of the 40th anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia.”
The problem with the (horribly over used) Loving example is its power comes from mere analogy. The problem with analogy is it is exactly that: an analogy.
Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy. Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation. The point of ant?miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.
Note this quick rebuke of same-sex ?marriage? offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York,
Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.
?[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.?
The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance?a difference of kind.
As dismissals of the Living v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However ? I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn?t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind “We vigorously reject any attempt to link the discriminatory Anti miscegenation laws in Loving with this State?s DOMA. The Washington Court of Appeals in Singer correctly noted:the Loving and Perez courts [Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)] did not change the basic definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman; rather, they merely held that the race of the man or woman desiring to enter that relationship could not be considered by the state in granting a marriage license. 11 Wn. App. at 255 n.8. Numerous other courts have all rejected the claim that the decision in Loving somehow challenged state laws reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.25 Careful review of the historical context of Loving further undermines the dissents? disturbing attempt to link constitutionally void, racist laws with a historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Anti miscegenation laws were anathema to the ?color-blind? constitution articulated in Justice John Marshall Harlan?s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.26 Anti miscegenation laws infringed upon the union of one man and one woman by injecting racial status as a qualification. Such laws contradicted the fact that a man and a woman of any race have the natural right to marry and have children. This right is protected by the United States and Washington State Constitutions. Racially discriminatory anti miscegenation laws also violate the right to marriage between a man and a woman. Here, in contrast, the State?s DOMA simply confirms the common law understanding of marriage as a union of a man and woman. It is the dissent that would abrogate the common law understanding through judicial fiat.”
Every court has rejected the Loving v Virginia reasoning as inapplicable. Even the Goodridge court refused to give homosexuals strict scrutiny protection as Loving accorded to race.
posted by Fitz on
of things being compared.
As the Washington dicesion illustrates
“We vigorously reject any attempt to link the discriminatory Anti miscegenation laws in Loving with this State?s DOMA. The Washington Court of Appeals in Singer correctly noted:the Loving and Perez courts [Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)] did not change the basic definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman; rather, they merely held that the race of the man or woman desiring to enter that relationship could not be considered by the state in granting a marriage license. 11 Wn. App. at 255 n.8. Numerous other courts have all rejected the claim that the decision in Loving somehow challenged state laws reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.25 Careful review of the historical context of Loving further undermines the
dissents? disturbing attempt to link constitutionally void, racist laws with a historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Anti miscegenation laws were anathema to the ?color-blind? constitution articulated in Justice John Marshall Harlan?s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.26 Anti miscegenation laws infringed upon the union of one man and one woman by injecting racial status as a qualification. Such laws contradicted the fact that a man and a woman of any race have the natural right to marry and have children. This right is protected by the United States and Washington State Constitutions. Racially discriminatory anti miscegenation laws also violate the right to marriage between a man and a woman. Here, in contrast, the State?s DOMA simply confirms the common law understanding of marriage as a union of a man and woman. It is the dissent that would abrogate the common law understanding through judicial fiat.”
Every court has rejected the Loving v Virginia reasoning as inapplicable. Even the Goodridge (Mass) court refused to give homosexuals strict scrutiny protection as Loving accorded to race.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Let’s recognize the elephant in the room: Much of Michigan is in sad financial condition. Would any of this be at issue if state and municipal coffers were full? And could a similar rescission of same-partner benefits occur in other states facing hard times?
posted by Brian Miller on
Interesting how all of the anti-gay states are fiscal basket-cases, isn’t it?
One would think that they’re applying the same rigor and logic to their gay populations that they’ve also applied to their finances and general economies.
posted by Murchu on
I have a simple solution to this antigay constitutional madness.
You ban us, we ban you. I would let the tourism offices of each antigay constitutional state that we GLBTs do not care to spend our time or money on tourism in your state as long as your state bans legal recognition in your state’s documents of gay relationships.
We need to tell this to the tourism folks in each of the antigay amendment states.
if enough GLBTs make these kind of waves again and again, then the tourism people especially before an impending amendment vote is to take place will start complaining themselves here and there that the amendments will hurt business and tourism in their states.
Now that Massachusetts legislature has decided to keep gay marriage safe and legal and not send the amendment to the voters in 2008 (2012 is the earliest that they can even look at or OK the results of another possible antigay amendment petition drive.
I would suggest that people gay and straight flock to Massachusetts and spend their hard-earned tourism dollar and vacation time and help out the fiscally and financially strapped towns of Massachusetts by dining at their restaurants, visiting their historical sites, staying at their accommodations, renting their cars, and of course….
getting married (if so inclined) to your same-sex spouses or opposite sex spouses in Massachusetts once Massachusetts’ law passed in 1913 reputedly against interacial marriage(prohibitting non- Massachusetts residents from states with laws expressly limiting marriage to one man and one woman)gets hopefully soon repealed.
Antigay marriage ex-governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney has thankfully gone elsewhere and a progay marriage governor Deval Patrick is in his place.
Gov. Deval Patrick planned to march in the Boston Pride parade along with the Boston mayor, the first sitting MA gov to do so, and an African American Gov. at that.
Let’s visit Massachusetts (and the nearby civil union states of CT, VT, NH and also New Jersey) and let the antigay state tourism people that is where we will spend our dollars rather than in their antigay states.
My state of Maryland may possibly get gay marriage so please visit us if we get gay marriage or civil unions)