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 in Gay Rights, Health, Michigan, News | Permalink
Comments
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
Zeke: With respect, you and others who criticize folk who live in Michigan (or other places that have laws that hurt gays) might want to think about what you’re saying before you start preaching. Do you honestly think that the right-thinking people in Michigan have been silent during this?
Peterparker’s right: the whole country is filled with hate. Apparently, based on what you, Roscoe, and your ilk say, the only place that gay people ought to live is Denmark. Clearly your idea of taking a stand is to pick up your toys, toss a pouting look, and leave when you don't get your way.
Oh, and Anonymous who turned down a faculty position in Michigan: Thank you for not coming here. We can’t handle another person on faculty who doesn’t know the difference between “its” and “it’s.”
Posted by: JT | May 8, 2008 7:41:05 AM
Rather than going on about how everybody hates us, it might be more productive to consider our own role in this fiasco. Why have gays focused on marriage anyway? The state should be getting out of the marriage business, not further into it. The push for gay marriage was a conservative ploy to create precisely the kind of situation that has developed in Michigan--and many of us fell for it. As for universal health benefits, of course that's a reasonable way out of this mess. But when California had a ballot initiative for universal single-payer coverage, leading gay organizations refused to endorse it for fear of offending their billionaire backers--even though gay people would have been among the chief beneficiaries. Gays suffer discrimination and oppression in this country, but so do lots of other people. We've wasted a lot of political energy that could have gone into building a broad progressive agenda that would benefit everyone.
Posted by: apollo | May 8, 2008 9:56:32 AM
Thank you, Ernie, for pointing out what is inherently wrong with the U.S. in its lack of adequate, FAIR healthcare coverage. As an independent businessperson, and after struggling for several years to make my own American dream come true, I was finally able to come up with the regular cashflow to afford my own monthly benefits package...only to lose it again in a crisis. I'm not alone and Matt's detestable stupidity is what we're all fighting against. Not only is institutionalized discrimination hurting us, we've got a system of failures perpetuated by morons that speak without thought and lack any compassion for human beings that fall outside of their personal set of norms. It's always so much easier to just look the other way while you're working for a private corporation. State institutions are so unbelievably overregulated that it's a wonder anyone receives anything.
Well Matt, I'll be happy to deny your benefits in the future once the s-type is registered should you ever apply for a job, for being a moron. Oh, that's right! I don't hire morons.
And Luke? Thanks, yeah. We weren't really clear on the problem here. The condescension is illuminating. I half expect to hear you cry out "Poop on the floor! Poop on the floor!" and then rub our collective noses in it.
I too thought about leaving, if for nothing else, an extended stay just to experience living in a place like BA. I thought long and hard about that and came to the conclusion that IF you don't like the life you're presented with, it's YOUR choice to make a difference, but running to that grass that's always greener isn't the answer - not for me anyway.
My paternal family has been here for over 300 years. The country has evolved into a wreck. We're ALL responsible, whether we knew what was happening or not and I'm not about to abandon this place unless the military starts rounding up undesirables and herding people off to death camps by force, in which case, you bet your ass I'm gettin' the fuck outta here.
ERNIE, JT and APOLLO? You fucking rock. Well, essentially anyone that remembers that anti-Americanism by an American citizen is the equivalent of screaming, "Victim! Victim!" while you sit on your ass reading this post.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | May 8, 2008 11:10:34 AM
JT, when you say, "Our Republican state supreme court is going to regret this and other decisions...elections are coming up!", you identify one of the main problems--judges who are elected instead of appointed. Any judge who is up for reelection in a conservative state like Michigan would NEVER vote to overturn any or all of a state amendment that keeps queers from having any civil rights. When you're up for reelection, it definitely colours your outlook on what "justice" just might be. The other part of the equation is Amway and it's clout in Michigan. It's sort of like the Mormon "church" in Utah. Amway, its founders and its adherents--I'm sorry--its "independent businessmen" have great power, not just in Michigan but in the wing-nut movement at large. I am sure if you check out any of the Michigan supreme court judges campaign contributors list you will find Amway and its owners at the top of the list.
Posted by: mike | May 8, 2008 1:34:20 PM
JT, when you say, "Our Republican state supreme court is going to regret this and other decisions...elections are coming up!", you identify one of the main problems--judges who are elected instead of appointed. Any judge who is up for reelection in a conservative state like Michigan would NEVER vote to overturn any or all of a state amendment that keeps queers from having any civil rights. When you're up for reelection, it definitely colours your outlook on what "justice" just might be. The other part of the equation is Amway and it's clout in Michigan. It's sort of like the Mormon "church" in Utah. Amway, its founders and its adherents--I'm sorry--its "independent businessmen" have great power, not just in Michigan but in the wing-nut movement at large. I am sure if you check out any of the Michigan supreme court judges campaign contributors list you will find Amway and its owners at the top of the list.
Posted by: mike | May 8, 2008 1:35:22 PM
JT, I won't even waste my time responding to your ignorant statements about me. Just about everything you said about me is proof that you don't know me at all.
Besides, I never attacked anyone. That's not now and never has been my style. I took exception to those who defended the state's action based on things that had nothing to do with the issue (like how nice Michigan people are or how pretty the state is).
Oh, and by the way, I live in Florida, I think I am perfectly qualified to comment on backwards states. I comment negatively on my own OFTEN but I do more than just bitch about my state on Towleroad. I actually get involved in trying to change things. Hardly taking my ball and going home. However I have a FAMILY so it's not just about ME. I'm leaving this state for my SON and his welfare. My husband and I are planning toward and workin toward moving to a state where AT THE VERY LEAST he will legally be the son of the only other parent he has ever had since birth. You may call that taking my ball and going home but that would just show your narrow world view on this issue. This is not just about gay rights or civil rights to some of us; it's about life and death reality for our families.
Posted by: Zeke | May 8, 2008 6:54:33 PM
Oh, and one more thing JT: Your weren't nearly so self-righteous when you made derogatory comments about Southerners in previous posts.
Posted by: Zeke | May 8, 2008 6:56:56 PM
Recent Comments