Michigan Court: No Same-Sex Benefits

[deadparrot]

LANSING, Mich. Feb 2, 2007 (AP)— Public universities and state and local governments would violate the state constitution by providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge who said universities and governments could provide the benefits.

"The marriage amendment's plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose," the court wrote.

A constitutional amendment passed by Michigan voters in November 2004 made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose." Those six words led to the court fight over benefits for gay couples.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2844427

[terip64]

1. This admin set this state back. It is damn depressing! n/t

[SharonRB]

2. This really sucks --

Most big corporations now provide same-sex domestic partner benefits. I hate that the voters in this state passed this proposal. Many said benefits would not be affected, but we knew better. It will probably hurt with recruiting for the universities and government entities.

I wonder if it will go to the SCOTUS now -- of course, we know how they'll rule. The six little words put the nail in the coffin.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. I don't think the SCOTUS would have any jurisdiction

It's a state matter, dealing with a state referendum. There doesn't seem to be any federal issues involved.

But, this was a state Court of Appeals decision, so presumably, there's still an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

[Demeter]

14. I Would Think the Equal Protection Clause Enters In Here

Of course, one goes to Supreme Court with the Justices one has, not the ones we need....

[MGD]

19. Equal protection under the law only applies to heterosexuals apparently.

memories of Dred Scott.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. No

An Equal Protection argument could conceivably made for the whole issue of gay marriage, but that's not what's at stake here. This is about whether the state can provide domestic partner benefits to its employees, in seeming contradiction to the referendum that was passed.

[Demeter]

22. I Was Thinking That Equal Protection Would Take Down the Amendment, Actually

The whole issue has been a nightmare, from the deceptive way signatures were solicited, to the selective way it was implemented.

[xchrom]

3. and this is why i don't like leaving

marriage equality up to the states.

[against all enemies]

4. I hope every gay professor and professional leaves Michigan.

Many other states would welcome valuable assets.

[closeupready]

11. There was a study done a couple years back that showed just that,

that more progressive jurisdictions attract the best and brightest BECAUSE of that progressiveness. I know if I lived there, I'd be looking elsewhere. (Neanderthals! :mad: )

[Bitwit1234]

5. If the congress of Michigan can rally around something like this

why are they trying to fix the more pressing problems of the state. Such as unemployment. Trying to get the car manufacturing up and running again. What is so damn important about same sex marriage that it takes priority over the rest of what is ailing that state. Or any state for that matte.

I think we are electing the wrong representatives. We don't send them to the congress of the United States, or in this case the congress of a state to argue over same sex marrige while the damn state falls apart.

[donco6]

9. For some reason, "gay marriage" makes people pull the lever.

Whereas, "jumpstarting our dying economy" just doesn't elicit a visceral response.

[etherealtruth]

12. It was a court decision based on a voter passed initiative ...

Our governor and universities are horrified. Of course, our right wing nuts are applauding

[MasonJar]

6. We are indeed a backward nation. We go to church more than the

Europeans, but we are certainly not religious in anything more than name only. I heard on NPR this morning that even Italy, the most Catholic of the so-called "Ole Europe." is giving rights to partners of any type who have lived together for 5 years or more. The Vatican is having convulsions. of course, but the Italians say they have no rights in the matter.

[Kingshakabobo]

7. Gays need to organize a boycott of the state.

No more gay dollars for the summer vacation destinations.

[Orsino]

8. Or any straight-but-not-narrow dollars, either.

To hell with the MN constitution. It's a lie.

[Occulus]

10. I'll ask this here as well

Are children married to their parents?

How can a MI court defend health benefits provided under their parents' policies, given this decision? They aren't married to the providers of their policies....

[HuffleClaw]

15. WHAT ???!!!

holy crap. that is one fucked up leap of logic.

[SoCalDem]

16. All we need is a "pick ONE" policy to quit all this divisive legislation

A single person should have the right to designate a partner..related/marries/or not. A guy goes to work and says I'm married..here's my wife's name, and he's good to go. Does the insurance dept demand to see a marriage license? When the "wife" goes to the doctor, does she have to show a marriage license?

a regular insurance policy allows you to designate ANYONE YOU WANT as your beneficiary.

This whole issue is wrapped up in religiosity, when in fact it's really about MONEY.

If all the single people in the US could designate a "partner", and have that partner treated as spouses are treated NOW, there would be less in social security .. Single people's money just goes "poof" if they die at 50 or 60 or whenever they die.

That money is helping to keep the system limping along, and the politicos are shaking in their boots at the thought of having to pay out to non-married people....of any gender..

If a single working person wanted to put their handicapped sister on their plan, they should be allowed to. Each employee should be allowed to claim ONE other adult , and any minor children..born to them or adopted.

Guys who change wives more often than rthey change underwear are allowed to just keep changing the name on the policy, so why should others not be able to designate their own "partner"?

of course the solution is to have uiniversal care. Why should it even be your bosses business to be in a position to even know you are a gay person (unless you choose to tell them)>

This whole thing reeks.

[cigsandcoffee]

17. Michigan has a large black and Muslim population.

Gay rights are pretty well stifled in those communities. You'd think people who know oppression firsthand wouldn't be so quick to pass it on, but there you go.

[Neshanic]

18. Well thank God we have our Presidential candidates that will strongly voice a ...oh never mind.

I forgot.

[harpboy_ak]

20. The Alaska Supremes reached the opposite conclusion

They upset ex-Gov Frank The Bank Murkowski so much that he called a special lame duck session of the Alaska Lege to try to get them to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would overturn the court ruling.

The Alaska Supremes said that the marriage amendment pushed through in '04 with a lot of LDS Church money meant that same sex partner of state employees were not treated equally; they held that since unmarried opposite sex couples could receive partner benefits because they could marry in order to do so, and gays are prohibited from marrying, the state is required to offer the same benefits to same sex partners of state employees as they offer to married people.

Of course the wingnuts went ballistic.

It's pretty certain that a bill to amend the Constitution on this topic a second time won't get the required 2/3 vote in both houses to get on the ballot, so the Lege put an advisory vote on the ballot that coincides with the dates for the Anchorage municipal election, when Dem Mayor Mark Begich will be up for re-election.