Pledge to Fight Animal Cruelty

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Another Reason...

So Michigan has given us another reason for us never to move there. In a 5-2 decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has decided that Mark and I do not deserve to have domestic partner benefits. What does this mean? The court decided that a 2004 ban on "gay marriage" also allows governments and state universities from offering health insurance to the partners of gay workers. So up to 375 gay couple have lost the right to support their spouse with health insurance. If Mark and I lived in Michigan with OUR daughter, I would have no health insurance. If Mikayla was adopted in Michigan by us (a loving couple that has been in a relationship for eight years) only one of us would be her "legal" parent. That person would probably have been me and then she would have lost her insurance as well.

This is what people consider equal rights. Just because the religious right feels that my relationship with Mark (that has probably lasted longer than most straight couples) is evil or worst than terrorism, we lose what most people take for granted.

Justice Stephen Markman, writing for the majority, said that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar. He was joined by Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and Justices Maura Corrigan, Elizabeth Weaver and Robert Young Jr.

Dissenting Justices Michael Cavanagh and Marilyn Kelly said the constitutional amendment prohibits nothing more than same-sex marriages or similar unions. They argued that circumstances surrounding the election suggest Michigan voters didn't intent to take away people's benefits.
To read more, click here.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Up to 375 gay couple have lost the right to support their spouse with health insurance."

This statement is false. Not one individual has lost benefits as a result of this decision.

It's all a matter of semantics.

"Domestic partner" benefits were outlawed, replaced with "other designated beneficiary" benefits to the exact same people.

For all the hand-wringing going on, the Detroit Free Press, Lansing State Journal, and Ann Arbor News have all published stories in the last 48 hours reporting that no one will actually lose benefits.

Anonymous said...

Oh, OK, "anonymous 1"--just because rights were taken away (and they were taken away), and creative HR types managed to come up with a solution*, it doesn't mean there's a problem here? So it's OK to threaten to take away people's health insurance in the name of Jaye-sus?

Or that the supporters of the amendment said it wasn't about taking away benefits, and then changed their tune? When people claiming to be Christians are outright liars, they should be tossed to the lions.

*Allowing one other adult in the household to have health insurance on the employee's policy is how some Catholic institutions get around offering DP benefits. I don't know how they word the language to allow children of the partner-cum-designated beneficiary to be covered also.