Michigan: Republican-controlled state House Votes to Ban Domestic Partnership Benefits

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Domestic partners of Michigan state employees were supposed to start getting state benefits on October 1, but the Republican-controlled state House is having none of that:

The bills,

HB 4770

and

4771

, prohibit any government entity in the state - including universities and city governments - from providing such benefits and prohibit unions from including them in collective bargaining agreements.The GOP attack on domestic partner benefits began this winter when the

Michigan Civil Service Commission voted to allow

state employees to share health care benefits with an "other eligible adult." The OEA term is used in place of "domestic partner benefits," which the state Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2008, after Michigan voters approved an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution in 2004. The state Supreme Court ruled that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman also means that benefits - such as health benefits - should only be shared between those who can legally marry in Michigan.

The bills' sponsor argued that "It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees," which is just a lovely and in no way homophobic thought.

Aside from the glaringly obvious moral problems with legislation denying people health care and other benefits on the basis of who they love, there are legal problems with the bills. Prohibiting cities and universities from offering the benefits may exceed the legislature's authority:

State Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, said the House proposal violates constitutional protections for local control and university autonomy and described it as "clearly unfair and discriminatory."

So, in order to allegedly save the state money, the legislature banned entities other than the state from offering domestic partner benefits, and opened the state up to a series of lawsuits? As if we needed more evidence this was about hate, not money.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/667951/michigan_house_bans_domestic_partnership_benefits/#paragraph4

[kytwell 179]

It's a state right issue. If the Michigan voters are for it or against it, they'll vote them in or our at re-election time.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a state right issue. If the Michigan voters are for it or against it, they'll vote them in or our at re-election time.

How about mixed marriages? You think a state should have a right to ban their spouses benefits?

[Danno 1,228]

That one line said it all.

The bills' sponsor argued that "It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees,"

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Ship all the gayzors to an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and let them try to reproduce.

[kytwell 179]

How about mixed marriages? You think a state should have a right to ban their spouses benefits?

I didn't see that addressed or even referred to in the bill posted above. To me the bill seems to be about unwed partner's... gay and straight.

[slim 1,525]

After stopping welfare too? Man, Michigan is going to be rolling in the dough!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I didn't see that addressed or even referred to in the bill posted above. To me the bill seems to be about unwed partner's... gay and straight.

You really think the Republican-controlled state House voted to ban benefits for domestic partnerships regardless of whether they were gay or straight? Lets be real. This was about discriminating against gay couples in a state where the legislature has done all it can to do so.

MICHIGAN

• Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
• Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by 59 percent of voters.
• Court action: The state Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 3 that the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage should appear on the Nov. 2 ballot even though the state canvassing board could not overcome a partisan deadlock to certify the measure.

http://www.stateline...contentId=15576

Edited September 19, 2011 by DFH

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Even if a public employee is married, his or her spouse should not receive benefits.

Taxpayers should not support anything beyond the employees themselves.

[kytwell 179]

You really think the Republican-controlled state House voted to ban benefits for domestic partnerships regardless of whether they were gay or straight? Lets be real. This was about discriminating against gay couples in a state where the legislature citizens has done all it can to do so.

http://www.stateline...contentId=15576

^^^Fixed it for you^^^ source Below vvv

MICHIGAN

Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law

Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by 59 percent of voters.

Court action: The state Court of Appeals ruled Sept. 3 that the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage should appear on the Nov. 2 ballot even though the state canvassing board could not overcome a partisan deadlock to certify the measure.

It looks like the elected reps are doing what their constituency wants. We should be outraged over this.

In reality though, I don't really care. I don't think it's any of the government's business who is sleeping with who. And I do agree with DJ Kyo about the taxpayer's paying for the employees spouses and/or children. If the employee wants to pay for it, that's fine, but John Q. Public shouldn't be on the hook for it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It looks like the elected reps are doing what their constituency wants. We should be outraged over this.

It was popular back in the day to discriminate against other minorities. You think popular opinion should trump civil rights?

[kytwell 179]

2 times now trying to make this into a race debate. Turn off the perceived victim status and read the facts on the topic at hand. I even highlighted them for you within your own quotes above.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

2 times now trying to make this into a race debate. Turn off the perceived victim status and read the facts on the topic at hand. I even highlighted them for you within your own quotes above.

Civil Rights aren't limited to race. Do you not think that gay people have civil rights?

[kytwell 179]

Civil Rights aren't limited to race. Do you not think that gay people have civil rights?

I have read the bill 3 times now and no where am seeing gays singled out in the bill. You should look around at some of my posts. I have written that gays are no less human than straight people are. And I still do believe that to be true. But in this particular piece of legislation it does not violate their civil rights any more than it violates some one who chooses not to marry.

[웃 910]

I have read the bill 3 times now and no where am seeing gays singled out in the bill. You should look around at some of my posts. I have written that gays are no less human than straight people are. And I still do believe that to be true. But in this particular piece of legislation it does not violate their civil rights any more than it violates some one who chooses not to marry.

ARGUMENTS:

For:

Proponents of these bills advance three arguments. First and foremost, they say any

public employer who extends health care insurance to same-sex or opposite-sex domestic

partners is clearly breaking the law. Proponents say the legal case is clear. In 2004, the

citizens of Michigan approved the "defense of marriage amendment" to the state

constitution by passing Proposal 04-2, 61 percent to 49 percent. That language, found in

Article I, Section 25, makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform samesex marriages or civil unions. Further, in 2005, then Attorney General Mike Cox issued a

formal opinion, concluding that "Const 1963, art 1, section 25 prohibits state and local

governmental entities from conferring benefits on their employees on the basis of a

'domestic partnership' agreement that is characterized by reference to the attributes of a

marriage." Finally, in 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 ruling, upheld that

interpretation of the constitutional "defense of marriage" amendment, ruling that the

constitutional ban on same-sex marriage prohibits employers from extending health care

benefits to their employees' same-sex domestic partners. \

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/House/pdf/2011-HLA-4770-3.pdf