05/07/2008
Court: Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Affects Health Benefits
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled 5-2 today that state employers, including government offices and schools, cannot offer health insurance to the partners of gay employees.
According to the Detroit Free Press, "An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.The court majority found that language in the amendment prohibiting recognition of other unions 'for any purpose' included the extension of benefits to gay and lesbian partners of public employees. Several Michigan universities, including U-M and MSU, along with various municipal and school employers had offered the benefits as a means of attracting workers."
Posted 3:15 PM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Rights, Health, Michigan, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
How sad; Michigan is in such trouble economically already and this can't help. I'v spent several weeks nearly every summer of my life near Sleeping Bear Dunes (NW Lower Peninsula) and I have a great affection for the landscape and people of this region.
Perhaps the solution for these colleges would be to raise everyone's salary and have NO health benefits provided; you would buy them from third party providers. Probably not a good solution, but it would do an end run around the stupid law.
Posted by: Andy in Denver | May 7, 2008 3:22:57 PM
The best solution would be for all gay people to simply get the hell out of a state whose laws single them out for bigoted treatment.
Posted by: Roscoe | May 7, 2008 3:27:16 PM
ROSCOE...I agree with you 100%...unfortunately, we'd all have to leave the entire country.
Posted by: peterparker | May 7, 2008 3:34:59 PM
Man after the primary in Michigan (blame your elected leaders for that) and now this, I'd definitely be gettin' the hell out of dodge!
Posted by: Dane | May 7, 2008 3:37:42 PM
Apparently people in Michigan just don't seem to understand that state-sanctioned discrimination is economic poison. What big company wants to do business in a state like this? Any hopes Michigan had of attracting new industry and jobs, to replace the flailing auto industry, dwindled to almost nothing with the passage of this amendment in 2004. This ruling just makes things worse. The quality of the University of Michigan, my alma mater, is certainly being affected by this amendment. What talented academic wants to come to a university that is required to enforce discrimination in it's benefits policies? The same goes for the UM hospital system.
Posted by: Tom K. | May 7, 2008 3:51:56 PM
It is short-sighted to advocate boycott and "just leave" when rights are threatened or poor laws are passed. I did not leave Colorado when Amendment #2 was passed. I am not going to stop visiting a place that I have visited my entire life (NW Lower Michigan) due to this ruling. We can't all live in MA. And I agree with PP; we should all leave the USA and the unfair Federal laws that discriminate.
Do take note that this only affects *state* agencies; private employers are welcome to offer same-sex benefits.
Posted by: Andy in Denver | May 7, 2008 4:03:19 PM
As a Michigander, of course this is disappointing, however the silver lining could be that this highlights how discriminatory the amendment is, and could open it up to a newer legal challenge? Michigan is a beautiful state, and I'm confident it'll come around soon enough.
Posted by: Andy F | May 7, 2008 4:08:34 PM
While I do agree with "Andy In Denver" and the root of his thoughts it is quite obvious, to me, that this is not a viable solution.
Having said that, there are a LOT of gay men that are making the "exodus" to Canada in the past months. Whether that is for free health care or a comprehensive bill of human rights - I can not say. However it does speak to something.
Months ago there was a movement that called for a strike in the US by all immigrants (was it illegal or legal - I can not recall) in protest to the US gov't's stand on illegal immigrants.
I would really and I mean REALLY love to see what would happen if all, and I mean ALL homosexuals, closeted or not, would call in to work for 2 days - sick (or if you are out call in gay!) and let us witness the amount of damage.
Then to really get the point across - everyone that is cool with us homos call in "sick" as well....
Posted by: turnipHed | May 7, 2008 4:14:40 PM
There is a way other than boycott or leave -- if politicians and businesspeople are one thing, it's cowardly. WRITE. MAKE NOISE. If every person who commented on this blog wrote the State and THREATENED never to come again, it may have an effect.
In the meantime, as America continues its backward slide into theocratic fascism, please read Margaret Atwood "The Handmaid's Tale"... and be very afraid.
Posted by: Strepsi | May 7, 2008 4:15:26 PM
Andy I wish there was something that could be done. However, the way the law is written is pretty obvious... "for any purpose" leaves a lot of space. The main arguement in the case was voter intent and eliminating benefits was not the voter's intent. Well voter intent is extremely hard to prove or disprove. The best thing that would happen is a ballot initiative (that was initiated by the people) to repeal part or all of the law. Which won't happen because a large amount of the allied have already left Michigan due to economic reasons. Sorry to be all doom and gloom.
Posted by: Daspion | May 7, 2008 4:15:36 PM
I'm torn. Part of me really would like to leave Michigan because of this shit, the anti-affirmative action amendment to the constitution, and Amway. The other part of me is aware of my partner's (state) job that pays a bunch of the bills. I'm glad I'm healthy and don't desparately need health insurance. Michigan is a beautiful state, though, with people I love. Our Republican state supreme court is going to regret this and other decisions...elections are coming up!
Pray that Florida doesn't go the same way...
Posted by: JT | May 7, 2008 4:16:15 PM
..and it cracks me up when I see that new commercial on TV with Jeff Daniels Promoting Michigan..yea,"Come to Michigan,and be discriminated against"..NO Thanks! They'll NEVER see my tourizm dollars..No way,NO how! Same goes for any other Bigoted state...Fla. may be next...fuck'm all.
Posted by: Disgusted American | May 7, 2008 4:17:19 PM
Andy in Denver, I realize that this only affects state agencies. My point about attracting private businesses is that many businesses these days would prefer to do businesses in communities where they can draw from a pool of the best and brightest; and the best and brightest tend to live in more progressive places.
Posted by: Tom K. | May 7, 2008 4:28:12 PM
Just so everyone's clear: This is a part of the constitution. It's not a "law" that can be repealed by anything other than a majority of state voters. Writing letters to lawmakers, the governor, dog-catcher, or the attorney general won't make it go away. Now, the way the lawmakers, judges and attorney general interpret the damned thing is open to debate. The unfortunate thing is that the five Republicans on SC really fucked things up.
Posted by: JT | May 7, 2008 6:02:16 PM
An evil amendment with evil consequences and yet arrogant, ignorant voters approved it, and the Supreme Court comes up with this decision. Disgusting. And, stupid, since prohibiting allowing health benefits to partners of gay employees harms Michigan as well as gay people. They will be increasingly out of step.
It makes me doubly grateful to live in VT, where I receive health insurance thru my partner. As someone who's self-employed, I can't imagine how angry I'd be to be denied something so basic and important, and so available to straight people.
Posted by: Ernie | May 7, 2008 6:34:35 PM
It was a great day for us in Connecticut when I was able to add my partner to my coverage as a state employee. Now that I'm retired and we've got it forever, I appreciate even more the gay activists who fought for it.
Posted by: father Tony | May 7, 2008 7:06:33 PM
I've never understood why the state has to cover the spouses of straight workers so this move doesn't really upset me. Pay your own fucking way, people. I could understand the hoopla if this was about denying benefits to the children or elderly parents of workers --- but spouses???
Posted by: matt | May 7, 2008 10:18:34 PM
It's astonishing to me that so many of the people commenting here are bending over backwards to either defend the state or to explain to us why we shouldn't take any action to send the state a message.
No wonder we are considered ball-less and an easy mark to target. As long as the scenery is pretty who cares if the state takes our money, our work and our contributions but treats us like sh*t? Who cares if we work the same hours at the same jobs but are paid considerably less than our straight counterparts when their benefits are calculated in? As long as the people who voted for this policy are generally nice and seemingly warm hearted otherwise, no problem.
As a resident of Florida I have no problem discouraging people from coming here or spending their money here. I encourage people to leave this bigoted state. I myself am in the process of leaving it myself.
At some point we have to take a stand and at some point we have to say NO MORE.
Posted by: Zeke | May 7, 2008 10:59:32 PM
A shame really. I went to college in Michigan and I've found the majority of Michiganders to be decent and fair people. In some fields, even progressive.
I can only hope they see the error of their ways.
Posted by: Paul | May 7, 2008 11:07:51 PM
A complete shame. How could any court support this type of discrimination - especially one where the words "Freedom" and "Equality" are carved into a plaque at it's entrance.
Posted by: Dave Shortt | May 8, 2008 12:17:42 AM
I suggested to my rabid right wing GOP brother that perhaps many Michigan voters didn't realize they were stripping out domestic partner benefits in the same fell swoop.
My brother's response was basically that a marriage is a sacred union and we should be satified with Civil Unions. I pointed out that Civil Union is not available to be here in New Yor anyway but mainly that it's clear to my brother that his marriage of three years to a women is sacred and special where my relationship with my partner of 13 years is.....not
Posted by: alan | May 8, 2008 1:00:42 AM
I suggested to my rabid right wing GOP brother that perhaps many Michigan voters didn't realize they were stripping out domestic partner benefits in the same fell swoop.
My brother's response was basically that a marriage is a sacred union and we should be satified with Civil Unions. I pointed out that Civil Union is not available to be here in New Yor anyway but mainly that it's clear to my brother that his marriage of three years to a women is sacred and special where my relationship with my partner of 13 years is.....not
Posted by: alan | May 8, 2008 1:00:45 AM
Tom K. is right on the money. I was offered a faculty position a few years ago at Michigan, Ann Arbor. This pending sitution was one of the reasons I decided not to go there. Michigan can kiss it's economic future good-bye if they adopt discriminatory policies like this. I know at least one faculty member at UM who is trying to leave now -- why stay in such a toxic environment.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2008 1:35:42 AM
As a Brit I feel really sorry for you Americans. You struggle enough to get health care as it is. Let alone when you need it for your gay partner. And now they're making it illegal to give someone healthcare, even if they want to? I actually don't understand this. We all have the National Health Service (NHS) and it's for everybody, and on top of that we have private health insurance through our companies, and civil partnerships so same-sex partners are guaranteed equal partnership rights. America is generations behind the EU and the rest of the west.
Posted by: Luke | May 8, 2008 3:30:39 AM
"I've never understood why the state has to cover the spouses of straight workers so this move doesn't really upset me. Pay your own fucking way, people. I could understand the hoopla if this was about denying benefits to the children or elderly parents of workers --- but spouses???"
Matt, your compassionless argument would hold more water if gay couples and straight were treated the same, but they aren't. Inequality doesn't upset you? Ok then.
As for everyone paying their "own fucking way," do you understand the cost of health insurance and health care in this country for people (of all ages) who aren't part of corporate America? Hard-working people in the US still can't afford proper health care or insurance. But I suppose if they're not rich enough to suit your tastes, we should just let them die?
Posted by: Ernie | May 8, 2008 4:57:12 AM