September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Clear Thinking | Main | Gospel of Judas? »

February 12, 2007

Comments

link working?

Michigan's anti-gay-marriage amendment has been interpreted to ban all government provided benefits to gay couples, however long they have been together. Many are preparing to leave the state. Some of these couples have been together for decades. Kids are vulnerable too:

One well-publicized case involves Dennis and Tom Patrick, of neighboring Ypsilanti, who are raising four children. Because the oldest, a nine-year-old, requires special care and medical attention, Tom stopped working full-time in order to take care of him--taking health benefits through Dennis's employer, Eastern Michigan University (EMU). As a public university, EMU has to end spousal benefits under the prevailing ruling. And while Tom could always get benefits by returning to work full-time, he'd then have to leave care of the boy to somebody else. "I don't believe voters intended to hurt families and kids," Dennis told The Detroit News a year after the law first passed. "Our families exist, and no proposal or law is going to change [that]."

Will there be a backlash? Who knows? What I do know is that anyone under 30 has seen what the Republican party now stands for. And it isn't the values of the next generation.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/attacking_famil.html

In his article, GK raises a couple of good questions:

"However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals – non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers – share those benefits, either. Why should they?

If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?"


Alan,

The amendment you mention is not correctly described as anti-gay marriage. It simply legally defines marriage as it has been traditionally recognised as between only one man and one woman.

Anyone who wants to claim marrage on any other grounds is prohibited from doing so. This covers a variety of sexual persuasions.

It should be noted that government entities can provide benefits to the individuals you mentioned as long as they do not base the eligibility on a marital type relationship. This is certainly possible through State legislation and I believe that I could support that.

The comments to this entry are closed.