Since Michigan passed their own "defense of marriage" amendment, just one of the many DOMA's passed in 2004, Michigan's Proposal 2 was spun in a way to voters that gave them the impression that it was only for marriage. Turns out some voters are now confused about what they actually voted for.

At issue is the language approved by voters in Proposal 2: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Now, to be honest, it sounds clear to me. I would read this and say that it leaves the extent to which discrimination can takes place--wide open. I'm sorry but when it says, "...similar union for any purpose", people should have known better. On the other hand it is the job of the hypo-Christian campaign to spin it in a way that they make it sound to voters that it's only about marriage - after all isn't that all they are trying to "protect"? You'd be stupid to think that. They are not anti-gay marriage. They are simply anti-gay.

Give me a break.

It will include things like civil unions, and it could prohibit state and local governmental entities from providing domestic partner benefits (health benefits) or recognizing civil unions, and it could prevent private employers from recognizing them too.

Here are quotes from two citizens who voted YES on Proposal 2.

I voted that way because I believe marriage is a sacrament," said Patricia Klein, 75, a retired former supervisor at Verizon Wireless who lives in Belleville. "But I definitely support them having a civil ceremony and having domestic partner benefits. I don't remember (the proposal) saying anything about health benefits."

__________

John Boyar of Eastpointe said his "yes" vote simply reaffirmed his belief in one man-one woman marriage. "It was about marriage, that's all I know," said Boyar, a retired TV repairman.

So now the controversy.

Is it the will of the hypo-Christians to get rid of all health benefits for gay families as well? Seems that the idea of "protecting" marriage is one thing, though to fight to deny all health benefits is overboard. These health benefits for gay families now hinge on lawsuits and domestic partners worry state's definition of marriage will keep them from insurance coverage. How about the children of these couples? Shouldn't these Christian folks want to make sure that these children have health coverage? After all--there isn't a way for the hypo-Christians to stop gay couples from having children (though they would of course love that).

It's just crazy to me--more so these so-called "Christians" are crazy.

"It would be very safe to say that Michigan's current struggles would put them in the category of being a test case," said Brad Luna, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization based in Washington, D.C. "All across the country where marriage amendments are being passed, they're passed with ... a convoluted sense of what it means. States (are trying) to deal with whether (the amendments are) a narrow interpretation regarding marriage or an octopus with eight legs that reaches out and touches everything."

So the legal battle...

In two lawsuits before the Michigan Court of Appeals, some argue the law also bars employers from offering health insurance to the partners of same-sex couples and their children. Others say the law was only intended to prevent marriage between gays and between lesbians; they argue the decision to offer benefits is the prerogative of employers without interference from the state.

Some 70 public and private employers in the state--including most major universities and colleges, several school districts and some cities offer health benefits to the partner and dependents of gay employees. A court decision would largely impact public employers because they are supported by taxpayer dollars. But gay rights activists worry about any ruling against domestic partner benefits could have a chilling effect on private employers offering benefits in the future. Why should a private employer not be allowed to offer such benefits on it's own free will? Blows my mind.

Patrick Gillen, co-author of the marriage amendment and litigation counsel for the conservative Thomas Moore Law Center in Ann Arbor, is suing to eliminate the benefits.

What do employers think?

Many public and private employers say they offer domestic partner benefits to attract and retain good employees.

"We don't take a political stand; we just provide what we think is fair and right for our employees," said Ford Motor Co. spokeswoman Marcey Evans. "The company is committed to diversity, tolerance and inclusion."

The attitude is the same at the University of Michigan, the first public university in Michigan to offer the benefits in 1994.
"We offer benefits to our employees in order to recruit and retain the very best faculty and staff. That's a decision we make as an employer," said Julie Peterson, a university spokeswoman. "The constitutional definition of marriage is not relevant to our decision."

This should be a very interesting case and could have an impact in other states with similar far reaching DOMA's.

Post by Bryan Harding

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 at 1:35 PM. Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.