5/08/2008
Not just marriage
Opponents of Florida's anti-gay marriage amendment argued the measure shouldn't be allowed on the ballot because it bans both gay marriage and civic unions and, oh yeah, maybe even partner benefits.
The Florida Supreme Court, in 2006, ruled that, taken in context, this seems to be just talking about gay marriage. Oh maybe. But over in Michigan they passed something like this and, sure enough, a court has now ruled that it bans governments from offering same-sex benefits. Could the same thing could happen here?
The Florida Supreme Court, in 2006, ruled that, taken in context, this seems to be just talking about gay marriage. Oh maybe. But over in Michigan they passed something like this and, sure enough, a court has now ruled that it bans governments from offering same-sex benefits. Could the same thing could happen here?
Labels: Constitutional Amendments, Theocrats
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Actually, your short blurb seriously misrepresents the Michigan court decision.
The MI Supreme Court Wed. upheld last year's MI Court of Appeals decision.
Even the opponents of Michigan's marriage amendment dispute your characterization of the ruling.
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 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. The new plans still include homosexual partners, but they also now include other categories of employees who weren't eligible before.
Thus, as a result, 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 Michigan citizens are now eligible for coverage under govt employees' health care plans than were before.
Post a Comment
The MI Supreme Court Wed. upheld last year's MI Court of Appeals decision.
Even the opponents of Michigan's marriage amendment dispute your characterization of the ruling.
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 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. The new plans still include homosexual partners, but they also now include other categories of employees who weren't eligible before.
Thus, as a result, 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 Michigan citizens are now eligible for coverage under govt employees' health care plans than were before.
# posted by 
: 3:46 PM
: 3:46 PM Links to this post:
<< Home
