Gov. Rick Snyder signs domestic partner benefits ban into law

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

Public employees, including state and local government workers and public school teachers, will no longer be allowed to extend their health care benefits to domestic partners. It is unclear whether the bill applies to state universities, although Snyder asserts that it does not. House Republicans, meanwhile, say it does apply to university employees.

The move is a blow to gay and lesbian activists throughout the state.

"We’re so very disappointed in the governor," Kary L. Moss, executive director of American Civil Liberties Union's Michigan chapter, said in an interview. "This was the moment for him to show real leadership, to rise above what I believe is petty politics, to tell the rest of the country that Michigan is not living in the dark ages and to create an open, inclusive Michigan."

The legislation was strongly opposed by the Ann Arbor City Council, Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce, University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University.

City Administrator Steve Powers said the city of Ann Arbor offers domestic partner benefits as long as the employee and "other qualified adult" have lived together for 18 months. He said there currently are 12 adults receiving such coverage from the city.

The county's policy is similar. County Administrator Verna McDaniel said the county provides domestic partner benefits to nine "other eligible adults" right now.

In a letter penned after signing House Bill 4770 this morning, Snyder said the ban "does not extend to university employees" because of autonomy awarded to public universities in the Michigan Constitution.

The University of Michigan reported that 570 adults and 48 children currently receive benefits through a domestic partner allowance.

U-M and Eastern Michigan University officials have openly criticized the ban, saying it's harmful to a state economy that is still rebounding from recent years.

Moss said the bill was discriminatory and was likely to end up in court. That sentiment has been echoed by several local lawmakers, including State Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor.

http://annarbor.com/news/gov-rick-snyder-signs-domestic-partner-benefits-ban-into-law/

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[Danno 1,228]

Shack-up's should not be spongin off the tax payer for healthcare.

Way too much potential for fraud in this stuff anyway.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Shack-up's should not be spongin off the tax payer for healthcare.

Way too much potential for fraud in this stuff anyway.

I agree. The states do not need to be paying for girlfriends and boyfriends, gay or straight. This is not a "gay issue"

I have no problem with gay marriage or giving benefits to a spouse, but "domestic partner" is just to broad. Why not just "anyone that knows a state employee gets benefits"

[mr and mrs 187]

not a fan, but then again I'm a vermonter.

this would be more okay if gays and lesbians had the right to get married. then it wouldn't exclude legitimate partners/families.

[mr and mrs 187]

oh hi fellow vermonter. : )

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

not a fan, but then again I'm a vermonter.

this would be more okay if gays and lesbians had the right to get married. then it wouldn't exclude legitimate partners/families.

Yep. You see how the anti-gay agenda strategy works? Deny them marriage, then dismiss their relationships as not being sincere. And see all the schmucks who lap it up.

[Danno 1,228]

Yep. You see how the anti-gay agenda strategy works? Deny them marriage, then dismiss their relationships as not being sincere. And see all the schmucks who lap it up.

Why do you have a problem with Democracy?

In a Republic we are guided by both the vote and the rule of law, not the will of a minority who want to redefine marriage and what a family entails.

Since Insurance is also offered to unnumbered children in the family.... why not unlimited spouses, Who the F are you to judge what a family or marriage looks like?

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

Why do you have a problem with Democracy?

In a Republic we are guided by both the vote and the rule of law, not the will of a minority who want to redefine marriage and what a family entails.

Since Insurance is also offered to unnumbered children in the family.... why not unlimited spouses, Who the F are you to judge what a family or marriage looks like?

Danno logic strikes again. Okay, Mr. Logical Genius - so if it were popular to ban racially mixed marriages, you'd support that, right? Being that you are so "pro-democratic?" For those who are civics challenged, it might behoove them to actually go back to school and understand how our democracy works in this country as opposed to mob rule.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Mister Fancypants

[Danno 1,228]

Danno logic strikes again. Okay, Mr. Logical Genius - so if it were popular to ban racially mixed marriages, you'd support that, right? Being that you are so "pro-democratic?" For those who are civics challenged, it might behoove them to actually go back to school and understand how our democracy works in this country as opposed to mob rule.

Any society has the right to define it's laws.... that includes marriage between races, age, genetic relation or any other parameter.

Are you suggesting that if 100% of the people in this country wanted a law against anything, their will should be thwarted?

You are better suited to a theocracy where a "higher" law rules over the freedom of the people.

Why don't you trust "the people'?

Your know-it-all ... "screw what everyone wants" attitude reminds me of something attributed to William F. Buckley (I believe.)

"I would rather be ruled by the first hundred names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard."

Edited December 24, 2011 by Danno

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Danno logic strikes again. Okay, Mr. Logical Genius - so if it were popular to ban racially mixed marriages, you'd support that, right? Being that you are so "pro-democratic?" For those who are civics challenged, it might behoove them to actually go back to school and understand how our democracy works in this country as opposed to mob rule.

mob rule won the day with the 17th amendment.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I trust 'the people' but I don't trust 'the Danno.'

If the law bans gay "marriage" then there needs to be another method of obtaining all of the rights and privileges "marriage" encompasses to gay couples.

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

Any society has the right to define it's laws.... that includes marriage between races, age, genetic relation or any other parameter.

You're clueless about how our democracy works in this country and the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Sad for you and sad for this country if there are more Dannos out there.

[Danno 1,228]

I trust 'the people' but I don't trust 'the Danno.'

If the law bans gay "marriage" then there needs to be another method of obtaining all of the rights and privileges "marriage" encompasses to gay couples.

But Homosexuality is just one of many expressions of love and of course sex.... why do you deny this and impose you rigid ideas on others by confining them to just choice A. or B.?

Homosexual or Heterosexuals each only choosing one partner?

Take your position to it's logical conclusion.-> people have a right to form their own ideas of what love and family consist of... without being shacked by religious tradition.

This is the society I want to see in action...... then we will be reminded of why the first model worked sooo much better.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

But Homosexuality is just one of many expressions of love and of course sex.... why do you deny this and impose you rigid ideas on others by confining them to just choice A. or B.?

Homosexual or Heterosexuals each only choosing one partner?

Take your position to it's logical conclusion.-> people have a right to form their own ideas of what love and family consist of... without being shacked by religious tradition.

This is the society I want to see in action...... then we will be reminded of why the first model worked sooo much better.

Try taking your model to it's (il-)Danno-logical conclusion. How exactly were things better when inter-racial marriages were illegal? How are same sex couples, dare I say it, marriages, different? I personally could care less if someone wants to marry multiple partners, someone from another race, another religion, or stays single and plays the field. I do care when persons such as yourself impose your values on others, which is not the same as failing to recognize many of our laws do exactly that, impose views born out of religion upon others.