 |
|
| Home > Random > Surprise! Now they're after benefits too. |
| Surprise! Now they're after benefits too. | | Date Created: Mar 08, 2005, 05:27 PM |
Once again, to the voters of the State of Michigan:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. -- Michigan's "Proposal 2", passed last November.
OK. So no gay marriage in Michigan. What's the big deal? The big deal, as many of us predicted, is those six little words, "or similar union for any purpose."
In the October 24 issue of the MetroTimes, Gary Glenn, President of the American Family Association of Michigan said, that Proposal 2 would not affect domestic partnership benefits in Michigan. Said Glenn, "... every single person currently receiving any kind of benefit would continue to do so."
He is quoted on the HRC website as saying, "It is our opinion the state can offer benefits to any employee or dependent it wishes to, but it cannot do so on the basis of recognizing a homosexual relationship as equal or similar to marriage."
A person identifying himself as Gary Glenn wrote a comment on this site that states that the claim of Proposal 2's opponents, that the proposal would be used to remove domestic partnership benefits, was "a scare tactic." Probably an accurate quote since the Ann Arbor News apparently has him using the same words on October 23rd in an article by Brian Wheeler.
And, Mr. Glenn is quoted in an op-ed piece in the Detroit News as saying, "the proposal will not affect benefits offered to people living together or in same-sex relationships." Though Mr. Glenn now denies making such a statement, he is reported to have made similar statements to The State News.
Now Glenn is quoted in The Michigan Daily as saying, "We don’t have any doubt that Eastern’s [Eastern Michigan University's] intent is to treat homosexual domestic partnerships as being equal or similar to marriage and is thus a violation of the state constitution."
My husband has a good job working as a contractor for the auto industry. Because he is a contract employee, he does not receive health insurance. Fortunately, as a graduate student instructor, I can cover him on my health insurance. For now. He and I have spent a significant sum of money in attorney's fees for wills, power of attorney documents, and other estate planning. All that appears to be valid. For now.
Did you vote for Proposal 2? Were you really so naive as to think it had anything to do with marriage? Now you see the truth. Groups like the American "Family" Association are just out to get LGBT folks anyway they can. Even if they have to lie to do it. They say this is a fight about morals, but exactly what kind of morals are they talking about? Obviously they lied about their intentions in November. Their kind of morality takes away health insurance from those who need and deserve it.
Proposal 2 has already passed. There is not much that can be done about that. However its passage was not the end of the debate. As the EMU story shows us, it was only the beginning. Groups like the AFA are right about one thing: families are under attack. Familes like mine are indeed under attack as right-wing extremists scheme to steal my benefits, benefits I work hard for, benefits I still have. For now. |
|
|
|
|
