Michigan court makes liar out of Florida anti-gay group’s promises
May 8th, 2008 by Wayne Garcia in Issues & Wonky ShitA bad decision for supporter of equality, out of the Michigan Supreme Court, which ruled that the state’s anti-gay marriage amendment prohibits domestic partnership benefits. More about it over at Fix It Now blog.
Send to a friend:
May 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Wayne,
The MI Supreme Court Wed. simply upheld last year’s MI Court of Appeals decision.
Even the opponents of Michigan’s marriage amendment dispute your characterization of the ruling. Does that make you a liar?
Attorney Jay Kaplan of the Michigan ACLU, lead counsel for the homosexual plaintiffs in the MI case, last June told Lansing City Pulse:
“‘The Michigan Court of Appeals decision never said that public employers could not provide health care coverage to domestic partners of employees,’ Kaplan wrote in an e-mail. He said that employers can provide health insurance coverage for domestic partners as long as they do not specifically recognize the domestic partner relationship — by filing domestic partner benefit forms, for example — when determining criteria for insurance eligibility.”
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1133&Itemid=2
Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsweekly in Detroit, reported:
“(ACLU-Michigan lawyer Jay) Kaplan says that even under the Appeals Court ruling, benefits can be offered, but they have to be done in a way which does not recognize same-sex partners or relationships.”
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25497
Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality, a homosexual activist group, said last June in a news release:
“The Michigan Court of Appeals did not say that health insurance coverage for domestic partners is illegal. The court said that public employers cannot use criteria that recognizes the domestic partner relationship.”
http://www.tri.org/docs/Kzoodprallies.doc
As a result of the Appeals ruling, upheld by the Supremes this week, public employers in MI simply broadened the eligibility criteria so that benefits were no longer available only for homsexual couples, i.e., so that the benefits were no longer based on govt recognition of a homosexual partnership. (That’s what constitutionally prohibited, not the benefits themselves.)
The new plans still include homosexual partners, but they also now include other categories of employees who weren’t eligible before.
Thus, as a direct result of the Marriage Protection Amendment, not only has no individual actually lost any benefits, the fact is that under the broader criteria now in place at U-M, MSU, etc., MORE citizens are now eligible for coverage under govt employees’ health care plans than were before.
Would you rather revert back to the previous homosexual domestic partner-only benefit policies, and take benefits away from those new categories of govt employees who are now eligible?
The supporters of Florida’s marriage amendment are telling the truth, and the MI Supreme Court decision Wed. proves it.
The issue of benefits wasn’t before the court. The issue was formal govt recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage as the basis for benefits. Benefits are not constitutionally prohibited. Benefits based on govt recognition of homosexual relationships are.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Amendment proponents are now saying “No, this will not happen in Florida when Amendment 2 is passed.”
Oh yea? There will be some group that will use this amendment to begin litigation to stop employers from offering benefits to non-married couples.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Gary — a liar? come, come now.
Your interpretation of the “broadening” of the benefits formerly known as domestic partnerships is a very hopeful one, but it is not that certain. read excellent piece on point at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/08/benefits