Michigan’s voters passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage “or similar union for any purpose.” Because of that, the state supreme court has now ruled that no public agency can extend any benefits to domestic partners (e.g., to gay couples, who, of course, cannot get married in Michigan).
The irony is twofold. First, though the amendment was touted by “pro-family” organizations, among those hurt by the ruling are the children living in households of gay couples. Sorry, not only do we not recognize your adoptive parents as your “real” parents, but you can’t have health insurance, either. A bigger irony is that the “pro-family” folks who proposed and got Amendment 2 pushed through claimed again and again and again that this was not about “benefits,” that beneifts would never be taken away, it was simply about protecting the “M” word from those nassssty gay people.
I wonder if the “Citizens for the Protection of Marriage” can be sued by the couples so affected.
Meanwhile, the Maryland supreme court has ruled that, regardless of Islamic law, a guy can’t summarily divorce his wife by simply repeating “I divorce you” three times – certainly not in order to avoid having to divide up the (in this case sizeable) estate.
Maybe he’ll sue that his freedom of religion is being infringed …
(via Les)
Gak! I guess I can add that to the reasons I’m glad I don’t live in Michigan any more. Southwest Michigan, where I lived, was fairly conservative, but I always thought the southeast part of the state (with the majority of the population, centering on Detroit) was more liberal. I guess it wasn’t as liberal as I thought. I would have predicted that the more liberal and more populous part of the state would not support a defense of marriage act. I wonder what the economic effect will be (if any). Will the number of companies that decide to go to Michigan because they like the amendment be greater or smaller than the number of companies that decide not to go to Michigan because they dislike the amendment?
Or will it factor into any companies’ decisions?
For myself, were I involved in expanding a company, I’d certainly think thrice before going into Michigan. It doesn’t sound like a policy that would particularly help my business, and one that could potentially hurt it. Though this case only affects public employees, not private ones (so far).
I am shocked, shocked that a bunch of conservitives lied to descriminate against a group that they do not like.
This whole debate simply enfuriates me. These so-called ‘pro-family’ people also end up denying non-married hetero-sexual couples shared benefits and their children as well.
This rabidly anti-gay agenda is so transparent that I can’t imagine people falling for it, but gays are one of the last minority groups that people fell good about repressing.
People are people, we don’t belong in their bedrooms with legislation, ANY stable realtionship is good for society.
I just cannot understand why people are so bitter…unfortunately, even the more seemingly moderate religions are very anti-gay.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “moderate,” Jim. It also depends on the person within the religion — in any given church, let alone denomination, let alone religion, there’s usually a very wide array of opinion, esp. about something like this.
BD, interestingly enough, it may boomerang. In my reading, it appear that a similar ballot measure is being discussed in Florida, and exactly the same assertion has been made there … and the opponents are pointing at this case to demonstrate otherwise. Of course, that assumes the electorate are paying attention or not simply voting their ick factor rather than making a studied public policy decision.