Arbor Update

Same-Sex Benefits Suit Filed Against A2 Schools

9. February 2005 • Scott Trudeau
Email this article

Right on schedule:

As opponents of Proposal 2 predicted, the constitutional amendment approved by Michigan voters last November to define marriage is being used to challenge same-sex benefits provided to partners of gay public employees.

An existing lawsuit against Ann Arbor Public Schools is apparently going to be the test case.

The Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center and 17 taxpayers are asking the Michigan Court of Appeals to stop the local school district from providing medical benefits to gay couples. In court papers, they cite the November constitutional amendment known as Proposal 2, which says the union between a man and a woman “shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

> AA News: Suit seeks to end same-sex benefits

« Previous Article Killer Coke, Rally and Teach-in
Next Article AU International Travel Log »

1. And again, that language is over-broad. Why do conservatives want to make it harder to get the best people as teachers?
      —js    Feb. 9 '05 - 01:30PM    #
   
2. js: Too late!
   
   And, come on, are you really surprised that conservatives hate kids? Ever since child labor laws were created, and kids stopped pulling their own weight in this society, they’ve been nothing but a drain. . .
      —Murph    Feb. 9 '05 - 02:21PM    #
   
3. No, what I’m saying is that it’s easy to make the argument that since the language is overbroad, despite it being in the constitution, it’s unenforcable. I mean, you can use an argument like this: They’re not providing marriage-like health benefits to gays, they’re providing benefits to same-sex longtime companions. There’s nothing sexual necessary about the relationship. In fact, to make it comply with the law, they should simply extend the benefits to opposite sex partners who have been together a requisite amount of time (say, 5 years). Then it’s got nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with cementing employee loyalty. Unless you specifically say that homos can’t have the same benefits, then there’s no way to differentiate between two guys living together as roomies and two guys living together as lovers.
   This would actually make marriage weaker. Way to go conservatives!
   (And man, they seem to hate everybody, but then at the slightest suggestion anyone might disagree with them, they’re willing to call ‘em an America Hater or Bush Hater or whatever the fuck…)
      —js    Feb. 9 '05 - 09:39PM    #
   
4. Or, instead of requiring the 5 year commitment, just stop recognizing marriages and start recognizing only “domestic partnerships” as defined by the most appropriate governing body (in this case, that’d probably be A2) ... wonder if that’d work…
      —Scott T.    Feb. 9 '05 - 10:43PM    #