Domestic partner benefits: Ann Arbor couples at forefront of lawsuit challenging ban
Two Ann Arbor couples are at the forefront of an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed Thursday asking a federal court to strike down a state law that bans domestic partner benefits for some public employees.
“This is not about politics or ideology for us,” Ann Arbor teacher Peter Ways said in a news release issued by the ACLU. Ways’ partner will lose his Ann Arbor schools’ benefits under the law. “This is about real families who are facing the real consequences of discriminatory laws. Just like our colleagues whose families will continue to receive health insurance, we want to care for our families.”
Peter Ways and Joe Breakey of Ann Arbor with their daughter, Aliza Breakey-Ways.
It's not clear whether ban applies to employees of public universities. The governor's office, and officials from the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University say it does not. However, some Michigan lawmakers say it does.
Supporters of the ban, including Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, say providing such benefits is too costly. "It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees," Agema said in a statement before the measure was signed into law. “… We are doing all we can to respect the will of the people and not place an unnecessary economic burden on our residents while so many are struggling to make ends meet."
The ACLU said the four couples named in the lawsuit are in long-term, committed relationships. Besides Ways and his partner Joe Breakey, the couples include Theresa Bassett and Carol Kennedy of Ann Arbor, JoLinda Jach and Barbara Ramber of Kalamazoo and Doak Bloss and Gerardo Ascheri of East Lansing
Ways and Breakey have a 9-year-old daughter. Breakey is self-employed as a licensed therapist. Being self-employed gives Joe the flexibility to be home for their daughter after school. The couple is considering a move to Washington so that that Ways could take a job that provides family benefits.
Bassett and Kennedy have six children ranging in age from 6 to 20 years old. Bassett teaches sixth and eighth grade math in Ann Arbor schools, which provides health insurance coverage to Kennedy, who is self-employed as a daycare provider. Because of Carol’s family history of breast cancer, individual comprehensive insurance coverage will be extremely expensive, the ACLU said.
Comments
Lisa D
Sun, May 19, 2013 : 2:29 p.m.
These two wonderful AAPS families deserve full coverage and the same benefits as University of Michigan employees and so many other employers that value and honor families and children. It is not the fault of these families that they are not allowed to get married in our regressive state! This k decision may impact other families that are considering a move to Michigan, or may contribute to our loss of bright, talented, beloved families like these to more progressive parts of the country. Hard to imagine that any attorneys involved in the contract did not "read" all the details. Might be time to consider new firm. Lisa Dengiz
Basic Bob
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 4:59 a.m.
So why don't these active working-age partners qualify for their own benefits at their own workplace? Maybe they're just not as good as those offered to government employees. That would hardly be grounds for a lawsuit.
Sparty
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 5:33 a.m.
Rofl, clearly not a constitutional scholar but that's ok. Read the story. Several of the partners are not employed, some are ill with pre-existing conditions or family history of health issues, etc. Even if self-employed, they have no benefits. Hypothetically if one if the claimants did work and was able to obtain their own benefits, the fact that they were unable to choose to participate in the Government provider plan of their partner is still a violation of their civil rights and equal protection under the law as mandated in the 14th Amendment.
Basic Bob
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
You probably send in those class-action lawsuit forms promising a check, which might cover the cost of the postage stamp but not the envelope. What is the actual loss if these people have jobs? For all those who want to see what it costs the government, I want to see actually monetary damages to the nontraditional families. Even better, what if they are independent contractors and charge extra to cover the cost of business (which typically includes the cost of health insurance)? That would be an unfair burden on their clients and a disadvantage to their competitors. Restraint of trade, bought and paid for by government policy, in the name of fairness. Trust me, the only people benefiting will be the lawyers.
Sparty
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 10:07 a.m.
It is if they are denied and the partners of heterosexuals are approved for benefits. Get it now? Equal protection under the law and all?
Bill Wilson
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 10:29 p.m.
Sally writes: First of all, health insurance is something that EVERYONE is entitled to. It's not a "luxury resource" that is rationed, as Mr. Santorum recently stated at an Iowa campaign meeting. He also said that it was ok for health insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Let's hope this narrow-minded individual does not even get close to becoming president of the US. Health care is a basic human right. The fact that not everyone can get it at a reasonable price (and many can't get it at all) in the US is a travesty. Employers should not be in the business of health care, nor should the state legislature be in the business of legislating morality. Health care should be provided to all, through taxes, and not through employers. It doesn't matter what anyone's personal marital situation is, and if everyone had health insurance, this would not be an issue. Slick Rick has made a difficult situation worse for many individuals with this bigoted, narrow-minded legislation, and I can't wait to see him go down in defeat int he next election. Hats off to the brave couples who have come forward to challenge this egregious legislation. ------------------------------------------------------- Heath care insurance is NOT a right. It's either made entirely by purchase (as I do), or as part, or in whole, of your wages. Reality has never seemed to play well in Ann Arbor. But reality will out: if employers are forced to provide benefits for same-sex couples by law, most will be unable to meet this burden financially, and will comply by removing benefits equally. Meaning: our children are going to find themselves without benefits. And... that's the truth of this situation.
Stan Bidlack
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 10:23 p.m.
We have known Joe Breakey and Peter Ways for 30 years. Joe, Peter, and Aliza comprise a steadfast and noble American family. The small-minded "values" and homophobia demonstrated by Gov. Rick Snyder, Rep. Dave Agema, and their ilk, are beneath Michigan's dignity. The thinly veiled fear and bigotry hiding behind this legislation are the dismal marks of ignorance, intolerance, and hatred. If this family is forced to leave our state, we will lose an incredible therapist and a peerless teacher who have inspired and educated thousands of our young people. Michigan needs solid families like this one. ~~ Stan & Nan Bidlack
Monica R-W
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 8:51 p.m.
Good for this couple. I would love to interview them on our weekend Political Podcast Show ROJS Radio. They're in just the type of situation, I described in this article: <a href="http://www.reachoutjobsearch.com/2011/12/oped-what-about-children-three-days.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.reachoutjobsearch.com/2011/12/oped-what-about-children-three-days.html</a>
Sparty
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.
Let's hope the Federal District Court Judge, a Clinton appointee, will issue an immediate injunction while the case proceeds so that people don't needlessly lose their benefits prematurely. Of course, we hope the ultimate ruling is a permanent injunction against this discriminatory law!
Basic Bob
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 11:58 a.m.
"Birth-parent, married heterosexuals are in a miniscule minority of family heads in the realm of families of 2012." We have now redefined minority to mean any group under attack by loudmouth bigots.
Sallyxyz
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 2:24 a.m.
First of all, health insurance is something that EVERYONE is entitled to. It's not a "luxury resource" that is rationed, as Mr. Santorum recently stated at an Iowa campaign meeting. He also said that it was ok for health insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Let's hope this narrow-minded individual does not even get close to becoming president of the US. Health care is a basic human right. The fact that not everyone can get it at a reasonable price (and many can't get it at all) in the US is a travesty. Employers should not be in the business of health care, nor should the state legislature be in the business of legislating morality. Health care should be provided to all, through taxes, and not through employers. It doesn't matter what anyone's personal marital situation is, and if everyone had health insurance, this would not be an issue. Slick Rick has made a difficult situation worse for many individuals with this bigoted, narrow-minded legislation, and I can't wait to see him go down in defeat int he next election. Hats off to the brave couples who have come forward to challenge this egregious legislation.
Sparty
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 10:03 a.m.
Wow - seems like a personal attack there snapshot.
snapshot
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.
Sally had throw her "slick Rick" comment in there, name calling must make folks feel better about themselves. I think you should refuse to work for any employer who provides health insurance in protest. I don't think this a case of "bigotry" and I take offense at your senseless and inflammatory name calling. It shows a certain ignorance and disrespect for opinions that differ from your own. Maybe this is the start of your own "employers should not provide health care" statement. In a way, your name calling could be considered "bigotry" could it not?
snapshot
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.
Now this is a case of public employees saying in all their union negotiations "we need to do this or we'll lose good people, they'll go somewhere else". Where do we draw the line on doling out "feel good" salaries and benefits? At some point someone has to say no to the give-a-ways. If the U of M and City of Ann Arbor want to be really fair, why don't they provide free health care for everybody instead of just a "select" group of public employees? Throw in a retirement pension at age 50 too. We can all be happy campers.
WonderWoman
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.
It's not that these people will be uninsured.....they will have to pay for their insurance, like many of us do. Why the complaints? Won't Obama Care take care of this situation by providing health care for all?
Gloriagirl
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
We should just recognize gay marriage in Michigan and this would eliminate the question of two people living together for convenience with children. That solves the issue.
SMAIVE
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 8:41 p.m.
"It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees," Agema said As far as his lame excuse, let's take it further. Why is it my responsibility to pay for someone's spouse and kids. I'm paying for the individual's service, not that of their child and spouse.
jayjay
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 8:33 p.m.
Doug, if what you describe is moderate, then I am at a loss for what on earth "radical right" would be. What the ACLU may stand for and fight for is the right of any group or citizen, just as you have the right to "indoctrinate today's youth" with your beliefs. Why is it you think our young people are so stupid they cannot think for themselves -- is it because they may not agree with you? You smack of the "America, Love it or Leave it!" crowd. The issue here is "How do you define what 'love it' means? And who makes the determination who should leave and when?" Please tell me why (and convincingly so) I should embrace the "moderate" ideas you put forward. I will tolerate them, but I will not embrace them, the same as I do with the ACLU and some of their more radical stances. You are apparently as far right as the ACLU that you look down upon is "far left". If you do not like something or someone, don't associate with them. But because they may not agree with you, don't paint them as "bad", or ultra-liberal or anti-american. I would suggest your lack of embracing diversity, a strength upon which this country was built, is anti-american. So who decides -- the one who has the physical force to make the other go away. Come on -- you cannot be serious.
Doug
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
Traditional values are being corrupted constantly. If it's not the marriage issue it's the Christmas displays, the American flag, solemn burials of our fallen soldiers, prayers in public, and any other traditional value that the ACLU can think of discarding. Our young people are being indoctrinated to despise these traditional values by ultra-liberal college professors and anti-American organizations constantly. It's time that moderate leadership take hold in this country before it is no longer recognizable as a leading country of the world.
clownfish
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 10:31 p.m.
A "Traditional value" is the ability to supply a stable environment for children, with access to affordable health care. It was not long ago that "tradition" was to marry off your young girls prior to age 16, not allow women to vote, not allow women to have property rights etc.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.
Traditional does not imply good. We mostly despise slavery now, or rounding up all the Chinese folks and kicking them out of town ("The Tacoma Method"), maybe Filipinos is better, or other separation based on race, or killing every last wolf, bear, and bison on sight - just a few examples - and I don't doubt that all of those views would have been called anti-American in their time, perhaps by someone like you.
SMAIVE
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
So the same values of countries like Iran, Pakistan, etc, eh?
sh1
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:39 p.m.
Whose traditional values?
jayjay
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 6:21 p.m.
Why is it so hard to get along? Why is it that people assume their morality is "right" and that morality is a "zero sum game", ie, if you do not follow my morals, you must be wrong? How is it that I can define my morals as being right, under whatever pretext, and then, deny your freedoms because you happen to believe differently. The intolerance and hate that are currently be spread all across the USA is incredible. Oh where has the USA gone wrong?
Max Maximus
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 5:56 p.m.
A2MIGUY...........it is you who "lies". Why don't you show us proof of what you accuse? Because you won't find it. Again, I'll ask- care to show some proof of these "lies"? Lying is bad. And two wrongs don't make a right. Don't lie about a "lie".
Sparty
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 3:12 p.m.
LoL. Busted.
kfolger
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.
<a href="http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2006-1/staszewski.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/lawreview/issues/2006-1/staszewski.pdf</a> For example, an official campaign brochure that was distributed by the organization provided as follows: Proposal 2 is Only about marriage. Marriage is a union between husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their lives. . . . It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is—for families today and future generations.26
kfolger
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:22 p.m.
<a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/michigan_glbt.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/michigan_glbt.pdf</a> CPM's television ads spoke directly to the question of eliminating benefits for civil unions: Proposal 2 isn't about benefits; it just puts the definition of marriage in our constitution.Judges and politicians couldn't change it; only voters could… One man, one woman. Vote yes, Proposal 2.
kfolger
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:18 p.m.
<a href="http://www2.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6866" rel='nofollow'>http://www2.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6866</a> Conservative Oakland County Commissioner Tom McMillin, who sponsored a successful resolution supporting the proposed amendment, is satisfied with the language, and claims Prop 2 opponents overstate the amendment's potential effect on employers' ability to provide benefits. "A business can say, 'Anybody who has benefits as of 2004 can still have them,'" McMillin says. "The basis just cannot be that it's marriage or something similar to marriage." This position is echoed by Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who says, "Under that policy, every single person currently receiving any kind of benefit would continue to do so. But it would not be on the basis of a government employer singling out homosexual relationships for the special treatment of being recognized as equal or similar to marriage."
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
Hmmm. Let's see. The Republicans pass a law that will discourage a certain group from living in the state. A group that happens to vote for Democrats more than they vote for Republicans. Next thing you know, they'll cut welfare benefits which also might encourage a group of people who don't usually vote for them to move away. A pattern?
Sparty
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 3:11 p.m.
Independence Day was a best selling movie. Will Smith, wasn't it? Who will play Snyder in OUR Independence Day movie after the Court rules in favor of same sex rights ?
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:43 p.m.
Nope, but the little green men at Area 52 and the black helicopters would be more interesting fodder.
Lisa Dengiz
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:17 p.m.
Thanks to these brave, great and wonderful families for wanting what the rest of us take for granted. We are with you! I have the honor to know both families quoted and know they are remarkable parents, employees and also make great civic contributions. It would be horrible if either had to lose their benefits or, worse, leave this community which they have helped to make so caring, inclusive and special.
Max Maximus
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:05 p.m.
Does anyone here believe in Democracy? Then take this debate outside of Ann Arbor into the State of Michigan- which is the governing body. And ask the majority of Michigan residents what they think? So before you go attacking my comment, take a close look that I did not offer an opinion of my own on the matter. I am just asking you "what the majority of Michiganders think"?
say it plain
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 2:28 a.m.
@sh1 has the *only* reply needed to address the 'referendum' question. This is a simple matter of civil rights, and I can't wait 'til our nation stops discriminating based on sexual orientation. No wonder the homophobic forces of rightwing politics want a constitutional ammendment--that's what you have to resort to when there is no actual justification for your discrimination--a brute-force *stipulation*!
spm
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.
Actually according to a Gallup poll done in 2004 - <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/13114/michigan-slight-majority-opposes-gay-marriage-ban.aspx" rel='nofollow'>http://www.gallup.com/poll/13114/michigan-slight-majority-opposes-gay-marriage-ban.aspx</a> A slight majority opposed the ban. Wonder if they redid the vote with everything that's happened if this ban would still pass?
a2miguy
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 5:11 p.m.
Max, the problem here is that those who proposed the same sex marriage ban amendment swore up and down and sideways that they would not hinder things like benefits, medical care decisions, etc. But that is EXACTLY what they are doing now. The used the tactic (it's called LYING, btw) to court those voters who were on the fence. It worked. So yes. I believe in democracy, too. But we were LIED TO in order to enact this law. So I'm sorry, but you cannot cite what "the majority of Michigan residents think" because they were brainwashed by liars.
Angry Redneck
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.
The people of Ann Arbor only believe in democracy when the majority agrees with them.
sh1
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
And of course you know the Bill of Rights was developed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The civil rights laws in our country may never have become law if they were based on referenda.
HaeJee
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:36 p.m.
It is a sad day when Michigan takes steps back, versus forward. It saddens me to hear politicians making justifications and rationalizations on discriminating against gays, based off saving a few dollars. It is like saying, I have a .50 cent coupon for my 100k grocery bill. How many times in history have conservatives have to be fought to gain equal rights? Is it not bad enough that gays can't marry, thanks to our prejudice religious politicians. They fail to recognize that religion and state are separate for a reason. I really hope that this lawsuit makes an impact and restores benefits.
Mr. Ed
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
We need to support and follow up on the current recall effort taking place now. Governor Snyder needs to go. We as a State and nation need to focus on human rights.
drewk
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 6:40 p.m.
Breathing fresh air is a human right. Getting free health insurance(or paid for, for that matter) is not a human right. This is not about anti=gay. This is about spending tax dollars inappropiately. If you want these couples to have the same benefits as hetero's, then help push for gay marriage.
Queen of Dragons
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:27 p.m.
The only reason this law is needed is cause we refuse to let them get married. so I say let them get married then it will be the same for hetro couples and gay and then there would be no problem right? simple sollution problem solved...
Civil Discourse
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:01 p.m.
When my husband and I returned to Ann Arbor and our home state two years ago, we proudly talked up the wonders of Michigan to our friends back East. We even lobbied seriously for some of them to join the migration back to the Mitten and help reverse the trend of declining population and talent flight that has plagued the state we love. We believed in Michigan and took real action to support this state. We took jobs, began paying taxes, supported our local businesses, purchased a home, volunteered in the community. Governor Snyder's signing of this blatantly anti-gay bill has made us deeply question the wisdom of this decision. Families, people I know, whom I care about, and whom I have seen work very hard to serve our community, are being treated like lesser people. It is unconscionable to stay quiet, secure that our own access to healthcare is protected while those around us suffer. This is not a Michigan we are proud of, and not the Michigan that we will continue to support. Not only do we wish Mr. Ways and Breakey and their daughter luck in their lawsuit--we also pledge out time, money, and action to help overturn this despicable law. Overturning this legislation will help real fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, loving life partners--all true. It will also help Michigan as a whole in its struggle to retain and attract our best and brightest community members. In a time when so many families are struggling to make ends meet, we cannot afford to further cripple Michigan's economic recovery with anti-business, anti-family, anti-community, anti-economic growth legislation. For the Governor whose entire agenda has been framed as "relentless positive action", this legislation is a stark and bewildering, and sickening departure from that credo. What can we possibly expect in the future from a governor who demonstrates so little leadership and so little strength.
Dog Guy
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3 p.m.
Our "diversity" coalition is held together by tax money and government power to demand a show of respect. We coalition members must support absolutely all parts of our coalition, regardless of any individual thought or morality, or we risk expulsion. Without the loud, constant support of our coalition a taxpaid teacher could see $100 per working hour drop to $30 and the enforced respect paid our "profession" evaporate. To maintain coalition benefits, I must support this cause as well as oppose taxes for charter schools. Never question my support for every part of the coalition: the party, the choice, the arts, the whales, our servant media, the air, the water, the greenspace, the companion animals, the waterfowl, the welfare poor, et cet. As I love my sinecure, I here give my total support.
sh1
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:42 p.m.
That's sort of a non-answer. You insist on adding a benefits package and call it dollars made per hour. Is it because you can't find an actual example?
Dog Guy
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:39 p.m.
Regarding $100 per working hour, sh 1, divide salary and current benefits for a teacher with several degrees and several decades experience by required on-site hours and that amount is not uncommon. You may even ignore the often greater value of the pension and get there. Einstein went to Catholic school, where division was taught.
sh1
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:43 p.m.
Please list the districts here that pay teachers $100/hour:
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.
I haven't seen it repeated much lately that in 2004, 59% of voters backed proposal 2, in part because assurances that it would not affect health insurance and other benefits for partners and children. I'm ready for a new proposal. I ask this question about twice a year: Why is it legal to compensate employees more based on their marital status and whether they have kids (and how many)? I've never understood that.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.
Interesting a2miguy. At UM, and I thought most others, the cost to the employee rises, but the employers cost does too. I hadn't realized some places have the deal you describe. So thanks. (PS: I have a wife and kid, so I am only subsidizing those with more than 1 kid since these extra kids cost no more to the employee here, UM picks up 100% of the extra kid's expensive effectively. The policy is expected to have a side effect of selecting for folks with larger families, while yours selects against, and might make total expense of health care decrease within a company, which might then let employer pay a higher percentage - hard to say that clearly.)
a2miguy
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.
sh1... Sorry to butt in here, but most companies' insurance plans have 3 levels: single, double, and family... with family being the most expensive. If your double coverage is the same cost (to you) as the family plan, then this is mostly likely due to your company's contract with the insurance agent/provider. So yes, it would seem both you and those on single plans are subsidizing those on the family plan. By comparison, my company pays the same amount for each plan, and the employee makes up the rest.
sh1
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
Roark, thanks for the reminder, and you ask an interesting question. Along that same topic, I've always wondered why I pay the same amount for my insurance at work (for just me and my spouse) as colleagues who have 5-6 kids. It does seem I am subsidizing their health care.
xmo
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:59 p.m.
In 2004, the VOTERS of the state of Michigan decided that a marriage was a union of a Man and a Women! You cannot blame the Republicans for this because it was the "will of the people" and remember, Granholm a Democrat was Governor. So, a lot of DEMOCRATS voted for this law. Not even ten years later, we are suppose to forget the "will of the people" and hand out money to non married partners? If this is SOOO popular, get it on the ballot and pass it as a law! Don't whine about and try to go against the will of the people!
say it plain
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 2:22 a.m.
OMG, it's so disgusting to realize that the people whose comments I've read over time are so hateful. It really will be eventually part of our history that we'll have to consider 'back then' when people still felt justified in their discrimination, you know, like back when miscegenation was a hot topic, yikes...
guyfroma2mi
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 12:42 a.m.
Please point out to me where in the Amendment it says anything about limiting health insurance benefits to those that are legally married, let alone giving the state the legal authority to seize control of these decisions from local authorities. And as you're so concerned about the "will of the people", and probably claim to favor local control over big central government, why do we have a politician from Grandville telling the City of Ann Arbor how to spend its money? If you're going to claim your precious Amendment as proof of the "will of the people" on this matter, I might point out that every single precinct in Ann Arbor voted against it and it enjoys unanimous support from local elected officials.
clownfish
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 10:23 p.m.
When the anti-gay marriage question was put on the ballot the people pushing for it said very plainly that they would NOT go after domestic partner benefits, they ONLY wanted to use the States power to limit individual freedom to choose ones partner on a legal document issued by The State. It is called "bait and switch", and it is the exact thing Bill Shuette is complaining about with the medical marijuana law. So, the "will of the people" was to limit marriage, not domestic partner benefits. Of course, the "will of the people" is often overturned by courts interpreting our Constitution, as pointed out above. Back in 2008 the "will of the people" was to elect Obama, and get health insurance reform I am wondering how that sits with you, XMO?
PE #1
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
Your logic is flawed. First, it's not the will of the people, it's the will of the majority. Second Just because there was a democratic Gov. doesn't mean there were more Democrats in MI then, and because we have a Republican Gov. now doesn't mean that there are more Republicans now. The number of people in a party does not fluctuate due to who our elected officials are. It is quite possible to have a democratic Gov. and have laws in place that reflect Republican ideals. It just means that at the time of election the candidate did a good job of appealing to both sides of the spectrum. Please PLEASE take a political science class if this is how you think it is. I mean I'm in high school and I can reason this out. Please inform yourselves.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 8:35 p.m.
Yade, I ment what employers charge the 65 year olds = what it costs the 65 year old.
Kade
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.
Rory, Actually, it's not fallacious. Many factors contribute to the cost of an insurance plan. Employees contribute to an employer-based coverage plan to offset the cost to the employer—which is negotiated each contract period based on average cost per user, current market rate for health care services, and many economic statistics including income level of the population the plan serves. Usage is one of the biggest factors. If I have a company where I insure 1000 low-risk, low-use insurance users, versus a 10-person company of high-risk, high use insurance users, surmise which one costs less. So, on average, the more ppl who pay into a plan, the cheaper the plan is to the employer. The employer can then use the surplus money for any number of options such as to negotiate a more comprehensive benefits plan for its employees or reduce the cost per user, etc. etc. As for the question of what happens when a small company needs to insure a large number of high-risk/high use employees, well, unsurprisingly, that agency has a difficult time being able to negotiate a contract with an insurance provider. Since we know that the cost of this benefit was cited at roughly $840K for the entire state, I don't think anyone can make the point that this a bank-breaker. Further, to address your query about why insurers don't charge more for healthcare for 65 yr olds vs. 45 yr olds—well, they do. It's all rolled into the risk analysis and the cost-per-user analysis that health care companies (and the government) use to assess the cost of employer- and government plans.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 6:35 p.m.
Kade: The logic is beyond me I think. "they are being asked" is passive voice - who is asking? Maybe God, the state, or the employer assigned them how many children to have, is that it? Or maybe it's just random, without the parent having any control over the number of kids they have? I actually think this is the basis for the old thinking, but it's wrong. (I ask my childless gay neighbors if they are still trying, but that is just for fun - we know how it works.) Or maybe it's just choice after all, and the folks with expensive cars (or fishing gear) deserve more compensation as well? That's an interesting possibility. The more ppl argument is fallacious too. Pennies of saving, if you spend thousands of dollars extra. Rationalizations on this topic abound. Age is another interesting example - why not charge 65 year olds more than 45 year olds, assuming their medical care is more expensive on average? The reason is that the 45 y.o.'s later hope to be 65 y.o.'s, so it will even out. Not everyone wants 3 kids eventually though.
Kade
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:09 p.m.
Rory- Your contention that a person supporting dependents (via benefits provision) is being compensated more than a single person reads as literal analysis. Individuals supporting dependents are not actually gettting more than you. They are being asked to provide for more with less. Further, the more ppl who pay into a benefits plan, the cheaper the cost becomes per person. so the more ppl who are insured in a benefits plan makes it cheaper for all.
Rork Kuick
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
Kade, I'll try. Such an employee is compensated more than one who is "single" (unless the employee is paying for 100% of the benefits, in which case they probably would be called something else). I also note that the governor is not relevant to such proposals passing or not, and that xmo's suggestion to change the law is a good one. Let's put proposals on the ballot every year if need be. It's merely a question of when the last twitches of the corpse will stop.
Kade
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
xmo-- Explain to me, please, how public employees in a domestic parnership who pay for their benefits plans and who also must pay TAXES on those benefits plans are being handed out money. Please.
Kade
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.
A2 citizen, Ever heard of "separate but equal?" (often rememberd by many folks as "separate and unequal") Wasn't right back then, and isn't right now. I think that's the correlation here.
a2citizen
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
Jon, the Oxford Dictionary defined marriage several hundred years ago. The OED is not The Bible. Are you equating the struggle of blacks to sit at the front of the bus to people who have been given every opportunity in life (and more)? Seriously?
sh1
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:08 p.m.
Trying to go "against the will of the people" is what civil rights has always been about. Going along with the status quo because it's the status quo is never going to bring about positive change.
Jon Saalberg
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:04 p.m.
Remember, 40 years ago and more, it was the "will of the people" that blacks were second-class citizens and worse. So often, the "will of the people" is the will of the ignorant, particularly, in our current case, when people use the bible to back their claims.
a2citizen
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
Federal courts? So much for the 10th Amendment. "...The couple is considering a move to Washington so that..." Take I-94 west, pick up I-90 in Minnesota. Send photos.
Oregon39_Michigan7
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 7:28 a.m.
a2citizen, The 14th Amendment says your 10th Amendment argument is lame. Might want to actually know what the Constitution says before you cite it.
Sparty
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 2:49 a.m.
We are going through the process of getting it changed, it's called the United States Federal District Court! No whining here, just hope for change. Yes we can in 2012! LoL.
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.
SMAIVE: The constitution doesn't provide a requirement for benefits. The State or a company provides it. It is not a right. People on this site believe it is a constitutional right. It is not. Not for straights or gays. But the rules on who receives the benefits are made by those who provide it. Those in a legal relationship (currently only married couples) are offered this benefit. Others are not. Want this changed? Then go through the process and get it changed. Quit whining. The whining is very annoying.
SMAIVE
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 8:49 p.m.
grye, Where does it say in our Consitution an employee is entitled to a benefit for being married? So lets get real if we're talking about money.
Mike D.
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 8:14 p.m.
If benefits are provided to one family, they should be provided to another. If you deny one family on the basis of its being a gay couple, that's a violation of equal protection. Any questions?
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.
What equal protection is being violated? Where in the US Constitution does it specifically state that health benefits will be provided to partners?
a2citizen
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.
"Equal protection"? Yeah, and I want a mansion in Maui, just like Oprah.
theodynus
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:46 p.m.
Yeah, that's where you file a lawsuit when your state passes a law that violates your federally guaranteed right to equal protection. I know it's harder to memorize the boring stuff after the Bill of Rights, but if you keep reading you'll see it just a little farther down the page. Fourteenth Amendment.
Sparty
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:31 p.m.
Only after the Federal Court rules !
Linda Diane Feldt
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
Peter and Joe are both incredible assets to the Ann Arbor community. I'm glad they are fighting this. I'm just one of many who do not want them to leave the state. I'm sure friends, family, employers, and others are equally touched by the other couples who have been harmed by this cruel and hateful legislation. I wrote to Governor Snyder asking for his veto, with details of three friends who need the healthcare coverage. One is no longer living, but her last years were made better because her health care was covered by her partner. As she died from leukemia she certainly didn't need the extra emotional, financial, and practical struggle of how to get and maintain health care coverage. The two others would find health care coverage difficult, and one friend can be only marginally employed because of her health issues. She is able to receive the care she needs because of her partner's benefits. They don't have the resources to sell their home at a loss and move to be employed in a state that isn't so backward. The cruelty behind this law is unfathomable. Governor Snyder didn't even bother to respond to my concerns. I'm a self employed single woman who knows how expensive and difficult it is to get and keep good health insurance. It has been a continuing struggle. Why would anyone want to make it harder for families to survive? And especially, to act against families where a family member may not survive. Thank you to the ACLU for taking on this most important fight for basic civil liberties. I hope that all of these families who are affected, and the University employees who remain threatened, will stay in Michigan, continue to contribute to what is good about our state, and know that you have thousands of straight allies who will continue to speak out and advocate for basic human rights for you and with you.
Atleast
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.
Michigan lawmakers need to admit that this is about families, not pretend it's about "roommates and unmarried partners of public employees." Peter Ways has made school a safe and welcoming place for students, including my daughter, who have faced personal crises we never even dreamed of when we were kids. If he and his family leave the state, students in the A2 schools lose a tireless champion.
Kade
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.
Rest assured that the pittance of tax dollars "saved" will pale in comparison to what it will cost to provide care to uninsured citizens--if they choose to stay in the state at all. Also, the idea that it's tax dollars providing these benefit plans is inaccurate. Most public employees must pay for their benefit plans too, and DP benefit plans ARE TAXED. THEY GENERATE REVENUE. This is bigotry and right-wing agenda-setting. It's conservatives who backed Snyder in the past election now getting him to pay up. Those of us who oppose this ban, whether we are directly affected or not, need to act. This is discrimination, pure and simple.
Sparty
Tue, Jan 10, 2012 : 5:32 a.m.
Same as for spouses. Your point is?
Mick52
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 10:30 p.m.
Unless public employees are paying the total amount of the insurances costs the benefits are definitely paid for by tax dollars. Probably 70 to 80 percent.
jayjay
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:19 p.m.
To Craig, Thank you for your comment and clarification. My words were in no way meant to suggest that it is only the Republicans and conservatives that have "hate" as their No. 1 priority. In clarifying, it is just the most vivid example of the moment -- witness -- 1. Newt G. -- Told "gay" voter when asked what he, NG, would do for him -- Told him to go vote for Obama, that he had no need for such people 2. Rick S -- His use of the word "black" in comments shown on news channels is deplorable. His statements on being gay -- no problem, just don't do gay actions -- Where is this guy coming from? 3. Ron Paul -- His statements about Blacks in his newsletters; yeh, tell me he never read what others were saying in his name 4. Mitt Romney -- His disgust with Obama and comments; hard for me to accept that they are not racist. 5, John Huntsman -- Even though I do not agree with his ideas, he seems to be the one decent person in the bunch. I haven't heard a slur from him yet and his actions speak for themselves -- which is why he will never be the Rep candidate. To suggest, however, that this is a Republican/conservative only issue, would definitely be wrong. There are a lot of PC Dems who are just that, PC, but when push comes to shove, their real beliefs come out as well.
Doug
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 7:29 p.m.
Yeah, and where is Huntsman in the polls?
Wolf's Bane
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1 p.m.
The article quote says it all: " "This is about real families who are facing the real consequences of discriminatory laws. Just like our colleagues whose families will continue to receive health insurance, we want to care for our families." In a time when we have so many families suffering due to the poor economic climate and for the Republican held Legislator to pull this just smacks of intolerance and fascism. I am truly ashamed of my State government.
jayjay
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1 p.m.
Once again, hate rules the roost. The USA was founded to protect and not be beholden to any religion. The anti-gay stance is a religious based belief, and as such, laws like this one ought to be struck down. What is the next group that Rick Snyder and company will take on to "cut costs"? What is the next bias waiting to be "kicked in ther gut" just because they are different? What is that makes supposedly good people so afraid of anyone who is "different"? So different that they must attack what they do not like or understand? People, this is not what America was founded upon! Hatred will never unite except for a small group -- look at the republican presidential campaign -- do you really want a bunch these hate filled, hate driven peole running the country? Respect those that are different. There is room for everyone -- it is called diversity!~ And it is in diversity that we are strong.
Tony Livingston
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
Yes, our state is being run by people who want the freedom to practice their religion and to prevent anyone else from practicing theirs!
justcurious
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
Thank you Craig for your comment. In a town like Ann Arbor it is hard to express any ideas without the real haters coming out of the woodwork.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.
I agree with most all of what you say. But don't for one second think that republicans/conservatives have a corner on "hate". They just "hate" different things than liberal "haters".
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:58 p.m.
The State should not be in the morality business. We have gotten stuck on the notion that the term "marriage" with its religious ramifications is the end all of domestic partnership. The State needs to be secularly neutral in this regard. A "marriage" as defined by "the church" should merely be a subset of domestic partnership recognized by the State. Blatant discrimination in the name of saving money is unacceptable. By way of full disclosure I go to a Christian Church most every Sunday. If any of my Pastors read this....you all have my phone number ;)
Sparty
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 2:58 p.m.
a2citizen, if you want the definition of marriage from hundreds of years ago, there are a few middle east dictatorships still hanging on, so feel free to move. We have moved on to more contemporary laws in the USA.
Tony Livingston
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.
The joke is that there are no moral requirements for marriage. People can marry for any reason they want to. Maybe if they really want to save money, they should go through and cancel all marriages that are deemed not up to their moral standards. Now there would be some real savings!
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.
a2citizen whats your point? I didn't call for a change in the definition of the word marriage. I said the State needs to accept a secular idea of domestic partnership of which an Oxford dictionary "marriage" would be a fully acceptable subset.
a2citizen
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
What about the definition of marriage in the Oxford Dictionary? The several hundred year old definition?
Adrienne
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.
Good for you, thanks for taking up the good fight. It's a brave step and I wish you all luck... along with resilience and chutzpah!
a2grateful
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.
Thank you to the ACLU for challenging the "new" law. Deep condolences to the families that have lost their benefits. Unfortunately for us, the definition of family is recently reframed to 1950s standards. That standard no longer reflects reality, and hasn't for 50 years. Disagree? Go to any elementary school, volunteer in classrooms, and listen to the family-of-origin stories of our children. Birth-parent, married heterosexuals are in a miniscule minority of family heads in the realm of families of 2012.
Sparty
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:29 p.m.
And times have changed in those hundreds of years. We no longer have slavery, we no longer disenfranchise women, we have equal pay laws, and we have same sex rights as tax paying citizens!
a2citizen
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.
Your definition of family may be from the 1950s, but the definition of marriage in the Oxford dictionary is several hundred years old.
David Briegel
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
And all the other varieties are relegated to second class status by our ruling elites!
u812
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.
Wrong!, Welcome to Mississippi. Republican's gathering money to start a war again.
Nature lover
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:06 p.m.
Bravo to these brave couples. Best of luck. Glad you're going through the federal courts. With a Republican governor, Republican legislature and Republican Supreme Court, there will be no relief at the state level. Pure Michigan, pure hatred.
johnnya2
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.
Well since the state already has a law that has tossed the 14th amendment, I guess you have no clue what you are talking about EQUAL PROTECTION ""no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The marriage ban for gay couples is clearly a violation of this AND based on his own words he is doing it for money, so lets stop all health care benefits for spouses and children. You CHOOSE to have kids, why should I as a tax payer be forced to foot the bill for their insurance? If you can't afford it, don't have them. It would save the state FAR more money than banning domestic partner benefits. As for blaming republicans, the law was sponsored by a republican, and in the house EVERY republican voted for the ban in both the House and Senate AND the governor signed it into law. So based on that, it IS a republican move. Find me ONE republican who had any form of vote on this issue who voted to keep benefits for gay families. Otherwise they are an anti-family party.
a2citizen
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
Federal courts? Then what do we do, toss the 10th Amendment?
justcurious
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.
When did democrats become the hate party?
bedrog
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
just curious...normally id be inclined to agree with your ' overly broad bush" critique....But when the historically most moderate repub candidate --Romney_ is running rightwards to escape his decent record in order to appeal to homophobic and science ( i.e. actual fact) -hating teaparty fanatics, there is something sinisterly wrong with the GOP.
sh1
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.
@justcurious, it's these same legislators that just tried to pass an anti-bullying law exempting bullying gays due to "religious or moral beliefs," so I don't think the broad brush is that inappropriate here. Or maybe you could list the GOP supporters of gay rights in our legislature and prove Nature lover wrong.
justcurious
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 12:21 p.m.
I think that painting all Republicans with the same brush is also a form of "Pure hatred".
Robert Thomas
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 11:58 a.m.
Okay, for those of you who will invariably comment that this ban is about saving tax payer money, I say yeah, right... It's the same load of bovine scat dished out by those opposed to the civil rights movement who said they were concerned about protecting states's rights. If this were truly about saving money, and not anti-gay, the governor would haved simultaneously pushed to allow gays to get married. 50 years from now historians will look back on these times as the dark ages of human rights.
Sparty
Mon, Jan 9, 2012 : 5:12 a.m.
Most same sex eligibility requirements include a minimum of 6 months residency before becoming eligible for benefits, much more than a marriage would for example.
Mick52
Sun, Jan 8, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.
Same sex fraud would be impossible to prove. But it could be an issue not as a fraud but as a fiscal issue for an employer. If a single person agrees to assist a friend by letting him/her move in, that could allow them to file for benefits for that person and his/her child. Not really a fraud at all if the suit is successful. An unintended consequence is if an employer see single employees taking room mates and filing for benefits they could simply change the benefit packages to eliminate dependent coverage and cover only the employee. This has been brought up and my be in the future as health care costs rise.
Sparty
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 1:01 a.m.
Gyre, you're ignoring the strict eligibility criteria each public provider required for same sex coverage as you go back and forth trying to find a winning point without success. First fraud, no success as there is no case of of any claims. Then claiming anybody could become eligible, but ignoring the strict eligibility requirements. Keep trying.
Sparty
Sat, Jan 7, 2012 : 12:54 a.m.
Wrong, the Court of Appeals said benefits couldn't be offered as a condition resulting from a relationship similar to marriage which is outlawed in Michigan for same sex partners. Hence, Other Qualifed Adult Coverage was enacted with support from the Courts and Attorney General Cox. It's this coverage which is now being banned by Snyder and is being litigated in Federal District Court.
Jack
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.
How short our memories are. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in 2007 that public institutions could not provide health benefits to same sex couples. The ban merely follows that ruling. Way before Snyder's time. I'm afraid I agree with grye on this one. I would vote in favor of same-sex couple marriages. It would really make things so much less complicated. As for the comment that heteros can "merrely" get married and receive benefits, come on now. Who's going to do that? There may be a few nuts out there but . . . And there are not all the preventative measures against fraud that are claimed. I know of several places where one only has to say it on paper and you're in. I'm getting a little sick of the argument that one is anti gay if one opposes anything wanted by the gay community. Or that there is no fraud. As for the argument that heteros remain on insurance - some heteros do not get a divorce because of the health insurance. But they are married still. And dependents are dependents - they get insurance whether gay or hetero. I hope the gay community keeps pushing for legal marriage. There are many of us that would vote for it.
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.
Sparty: The legislature has spoken, the governor signed the bill. If you believe that benefits should be offered, then get a legal union status created. I can't believe I have said this so many times, but without such a status, then anyone can say they are in a relationship and receive benefits, even if the relationship is a sham. What is so hard to see the potential for the stealing of our tax dollars? Or do you just not care? Is the offering of benefits to gay people more important than ensuring our tax dollars are not wasted?
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 9:39 p.m.
Mike: That's right, the potential for fraud existed under straight couples living together outside of marriage. The denial of benefits affected them too. The change was not purely discriminatory against gays, it affected straight people too. There shouldn't be a case of fraud to put protections in place to prevent fraud. This is proactive. It is a shame it has affected some people (gay and straight), however change can be made through existing processes. Submit a change to establish a legal domestic union status. If someone can get this done through the legislature or through the ballot box, it will solve many problems. However without an established legal position, such controversial situations will always blow up.
Sparty
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 8:17 p.m.
Wrong again ... each public employer had specific criteria defining the domestic partner eligibility. It detailed on how long the partners had to live together and proof had to be provided. It required in some cases power of attorneys for health or medical care. There were numerous steps of significant criteria that had to be attested to, or fraud would result with repayment required. Clearly a very significant deterrent. Keep on trying. There are no credible cases of same-sex fraud every claimed by a public employer offering these benefits, but there are many proven cases of State providers who conducted audits finding former spouses and dependents on benefits to which they were not eligible. The University of Michigan published it's results and found over 700 ineligible individuals on it's plans. None of them same-sex, by the way.
Mike D.
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.
grye, While I can't deny that there's potential for fraud, it's no greater than the potential for straight couple fraudulently getting married for the same purpose, and given that there are no proven cases anyone can site, a reasonable person would say that the theoretical potential for fraud is far outweighed by the benefit of providing health care to families of employees you want to retain. Your nuclear bomb to kill a roach is exactly what Snyder just signed; cut off health care for many people and risk a talent drain to eliminate the potential for fraud, which may or may not even be happening.
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 6:43 p.m.
Woman in Ypsilanti: nothing like dropping a nuclear bomb to kill a roach problem. Do you advocate opening up the barn and then complaining that some of the horses got out or would it be better to find an alternative solution? I have presented an alternative. No one wants to attempt to climb that hill. Got to love the polar views of the left and right.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 5:14 p.m.
@gyre Think about how much more fraud could be eliminated if employers just stopped providing benefits altogether!
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.
Sparty: If you want to be ignorant of the opportunity for fraud, go right ahead. If I need health benefits and I ask my friend Bob to include me on his health benefits as a "partner", there is not way to verify that Bob and I are not partners. I get health benefits from the state through Bob and we have fraud. Need I explain more? This law reduces the opportunity for fraud and waste of my tax dollars. If the desire is to provide benefits to gay couples that are in a committed relationship (not just the revolving door type of relationship), then pass a law allowing legal gay relationships. Since the voters have turned down gay marriage, call it something else. But don't deny there isn't the opportunity for fraud under the previous law.
Sparty
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.
Cite the examples of fraud! Did any public employer cite fraud regarding their benefit? Where are the specific credible cases of same sex fraud you persist in claiming? I claim there are cases of fraud of heterosexual people who divorce and fail to report their divorce in order to retain benefits, so let's cancel all spousal benefits. Immediately! This same sex ploy is a way for right wing radicals to hide their bigotry - nothing more.
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:49 p.m.
johnnya2: BTW, yes, being married does give you special rights. You have the inherent right to make life and death decisions for the spouse, you negate the need for court related intervention of assets upon death, you have the ability to file joint tax documentation, you can claim married on your W-4 tax document, as well as other special rights obtained when you are willing to create the relationship through marriage. However, the dissolution of this relationship does not come without its "special" problems. Dissolution of marriage is expensive. Entering the relationship takes much though and commitment knowing full well that exiting the relationship is not trivial. Without this legal commitment, coming and going is as easy as entering and exiting a building through a revolving door. What is at stake here is reducing the risk that the govt is covering indivduals that are entering and exiting relationships through the revolving door just to obtain benefits. This also includes straight individuals. You are correct in ensuring that spouses and children covered under govt benefits exist and fall withing the guidelines. In fact this already occurs in many business as well as govt organizations. Mr. Agema may have an anti-gay agenda, however the law does reduce the potential for fraud, whether you like it or not.
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
johnnya2: Would you rather have no controls over state monies being spent on health care benefits? It doesn't matter how many heterosexual people may be receiving benefits outside of any kind of a relationship. When the opportunity for fraud exists, the risks need to be reduced. If there is not control, we might as well open the flood gates. I agree that offering benefits would be the right thing to do, however there needs to be a legal relationship to show commitment between the two people. Either the state legislature needs to create this legal status (and again as I have said before, the relationship needs to be legally created and dissolved so that it is not just a matter of convenience to obtain benefits) or the people of this state need to vote to create the legal status. My position is not one of uncaring for any individual, mine is of reducing the opportunity for unlawful waste of government funds.
johnnya2
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:59 p.m.
@grye Site the numbers of heterosexual couples taking advantage of this law? There are simple ways to stop fraud. I had to prove my relationship to my employer to receive benefits from them. If Mr Agema wants to save money he could demand that all future contracts not include spouses or children with health care benefits. There is potential for fraud there as well. If you can tell me why being married gives you SPECIAL RIGHTS (allowing your spouse to get insurance at tax payer expense), then you might have an argument. By the way, those tax payer dollars he is screaming about are some of MINE. This is without question about gya people and nothing more. If you believe anything else you are walking through life with blinders on.
grye
Fri, Jan 6, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.
The governor didn't request this bill. It was written and passed by the legislature. Although the bill takes away benefits for couples, gay or straight, that are in a committed relationship, it does eliminate the potential for fraud. Contacting your representatives and the governor to request a legal domestic partner status be created would go a long way to solve the problem. There are many that believe this is all about non-heterosexual lifestyles, however the same people are all for other govt controls to reduce fraud, identity theft, and other privacy issues. Fix the problem through established processes.