The governor of Michigan has ordered the removal of negotiated domestic partner benefits from the contracts of state workers following the passage of that state’s anti-marriage amendment. The governor has apparently decided that the benefits constitute a prohibited “similar union” banned by the amendment.
A round of "fuck you"s is in order.
Fuck you to Governor Granholm (a Democrat) for exploiting bigotry to get out of the negotiations.
Fuck you to the dirtbags who pushed this and other similar amendments, playing on ridiculous prejudice and mindless fear.
And fuck you to every single Michigan voter who supported the amendment.
This is exactly what needs to happen. Strip everyone that’s not legally married of all the “benefits of marriage”, just like the amendment says. Make the straights & singles suck it up, too. It’s the fastest way to get past this, IMO.
You have insurance because your employer recognizes extra-legal relationships? Not any more!
You’re single and want to choose someone other than your legal next-of-kin for medical decisions? No way, jose!
Filing as ‘head-of-household’ or ‘married’ or declaring adults who are not blood relatives as dependents? Oh no you don’t! (I know very few who do this now; if both partners work, filing as singles usually costs less. But that may well start changing if they continue to change the tax codes to benefit marrieds.)
That’s all I can think of at the moment, but I know I had more prior to the election.
I think we need to start searching for local examples and filing lawsuits to stop these illegal, immoral activities! And make it very, very, very public - so all of those know-nothing cretins who passed this without bothering to think about it realize what they’ve done.
– redtail, unmarried denizen of Oklahoma, where a similar amendment was passed. Hell, I’m screwed anyway, being poly. Might as well share the joy!
I’m not sure that pushing for the enforcement of the letter of the law would lead to the amendment being overturned, though. I think it may well have been worded that way deliberately.
Lobbyists with large amounts of cash are even more popular with government that lobbyists with numbers of votes.
No “fuck you” to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, who, by deciding Goodridge, set the stage for the backlash of anti-SSM constitutional amendments all over the country?
Probably telling them “fuck you” is a bit harsh.
This IS backlash, though. And backlash swings harder than it should: common-sense amendments would have removed “marriage” but left private arrangements in place, if the goal was merely to “save” marriage. The attack on civil unions is simply ugly; there is no possible need for it. But that’s how backlash plays out.
The amendment in question here, passed a month ago, states that “only the union between one man and one woman in marriage shall be recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose.” There was some debate, before this proposal was passed, about the meaning of “similar union for any purpose.” Those groups backing the proposal, in general, adamantly denied that this clause would apply to same-sex benefits and the like. A few quotes to that effect are in this editorial.
That line seems to have changed now. In the past few days, there has been a swell of opposition in the Michigan Legislature to the inclusion of domestic partner benefits in the newly-negotiated state employee contract. Realistically, it was a near certainty that a bill negating these benefits would have been introduced, and probably passed, in the near future.
So shame on Granholm for caving in, but realistically, this just gets the issue into the courts a bit earlier than it otherwise would.
[And, as an aside, shame on whomever crafted the language in this proposal. Good God, I can’t help but think the vague wording was intentional.]
Yeah, it’s ugly. And fuck them. They deserve a great big fuck you for trying to stop gay marriages, and an even bigger one for trying to stop civil unions. People have the right to do what they like with their own lives when it doesn’t hurt others. Massachussetts was acting in a moral fashion, and these constitutional amendments are not. It’s nonsensical (outside of Brickerworld at least) to blame those doing good for the actions of those who do evil.
But I don’t think Governor Granholm deserves a fuck you. I worked with Coalition for a Fair Michigan, discussing the threat posed by Prop 2 with voters. It was clear beforehand that the amendment outlaws these types of benefits. She’s following the law here; the governor has the responsibility of enforcing this law, no matter how much she hates doing so.
Nope, not even the tiniest of "fuck you"s to the MA SJC for making the correct decision. They did their job; it’s not their fault that millions of half-witted assholes bought into the hysteria whipped up by the radical right to get their base to the polls.
The backlash horse is quite dead, Bricker. You are free to stop beating it any time now.
The blame properly lies with those who took part in the backlash.
Do we blame the 15th amendment for inspiring the KKK to lynch blacks who tried to vote, or do we blame the KKK? Come on, you’re smarter than that Bricker.
Should the MSJC have ignored their own Constitution and ruled incorrectly for fear of the backlash?
I thought you didn’t like activist courts. Under the Mass. State Constitution, the court had no choice but to rule the way they did. Blaming them for a backlash from reactionary rednecks makes no sense unless you really think that courts have some duty to weigh the possibility of such backlashes when making purely constutional rulings.
That’s not an issue. File a medical power of attorney. You could name a one-legged leper to make medical decisions for you and there’s not a damn thing anyone else can do about it.
But they haven’t done anything except acknowledge that people should not be rewarded for choosing to practice deviant sexual habits. This whole gay marriage bullshit thing is just another attempt by the deviants to force themselves to be accepted as normal. Next thing you know, the sheepfuckers will be lobbying for animal marriage and the pedophiles will be trying to get the age of consent lowered to 5.
Please explain why you have any right to tell other consenting adults that they can’t love or even gasp lust after other consenting adults?
Sexual preferance for or against one’s own gender is just a preferance like anything else.
Should you be called a deviant, and be discrinminated against because you like to put pineapple on your pizza?
Have your pizza choice linked with horrible child abuse even though it isn’t related at all really?
I disagree. I have to say I am disappointed in Granholm, and I really had a lot of respect for her. The proponents for this amendment said over and over they would not use the law to change same-sex benefits for those who had them. Then it’s the first thing that happens when the proposal passes, and Granholm isn’t even trying to put up a fight about it.
I have to say I was disgusted when this passed and it’s just getting worse and worse. I thought Granholm would at least try to protect those who have benefits. Maybe she really is forced to do this. Maybe I was naive. I just want her to stand up on this.
For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would want more people to go without health insurance. You are going to end up paying for it, people! Uninsured people still get sick and someone pays for it, if you don’t let gay couples get coverage you are going to pay for it out of your pocket, and then Oh my god you are giving money to the gays!!!
I feel sick that people hate any human so much that they wish them not to have health care.
This is the argument that I think is most apposite too.
It is also somewhat abusive of the federalism to suggest that a state court in Mass. should have based it’s decision (or decision not to hear that case, if that were allowed under Mass. abstention doctrines) on the possibility of a backlash in other states. Seems to run against the usual federalist line.
This is the argument that I think is most apposite too.
It is also somewhat abusive of the federalism to suggest that a state court in Mass. should have based it’s decision (or decision not to hear that case, if that were allowed under Mass. abstention doctrines) on the possibility of a backlash in other states. Seems to run against the usual federalist line.