Irwin, Rutledge call ban on domestic partner benefits discriminatory and overreaching
State Rep. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, says a pair of bills passed today by the Republican-controlled state House are discriminatory and erode the rights of cities, counties, schools and universities to offer domestic partner benefits to employees and their children.
"If this becomes law, we will have two employees working side by side with the same qualifications and experience and the employee living in a traditional family will receive significantly greater compensation," Irwin said. "That is clearly unfair and discriminatory."
House Bill 4770 prohibits public employers from providing health benefits to domestic partners of public employees, while HB 4771 excludes those benefits as a subject of collective bargaining. Both bills passed 64-44 along party lines and now head to the Senate.
Irwin said the proposed legislation is in direct conflict with constitutional provisions supporting local control and the autonomy of universities. If signed into law, Irwin and other Democrats warn the bills would be immediately challenged in court.
This isn't the first time this session that Republicans who control the Legislature have attempted to block the offering of taxpayer-paid health insurance to domestic partners living with public employees. Republicans supporting the bills say they reflect the will of Michigan voters who decided in 2004 to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
State Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, issued a statement today criticizing what he considered taxpayer-funded health care benefits for "roommates" of public employees.
"It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to support the roommates and unmarried partners of public employees," said Agema, who sponsored the legislation. "Providing benefits in this way is not the role of the state, especially when tax dollars are in short supply and there are critical programs being affected by the decrease in revenue."
Agema argued that Michigan voters, the state Supreme Court and the attorney general all agree with his legislation, and it's time to "respect the will of the people."
The Michigan Civil Service Commission has voted to allow domestic partner benefits for some state employees starting in October. Republicans tried to overturn the decision but couldn't get the two-thirds majority vote needed in the House.
State Rep. David Rutledge, D-Superior Township, called today's actions an overreach. He said no one disputes that offering health coverage to employees' domestic partners is a growing trend among world-class businesses across the country and internationally.
"I sincerely feel that this proposal demonstrates a lack of forward-thinking, and I urge the Senate and Gov. Snyder to reject the legislation," he added.
Irwin, who is concerned the legislation seeks to take away benefits from both the children and spouses of unmarried families, offered an amendment that would have tied the bill to his own legislation allowing second-parent adoption. The amendment was struck down by House Republicans before members had a chance to vote on it.
"If we're going to take benefits away from dependent children, I think it is important to provide a legal avenue for both parents to assert their parental rights and responsibilities," Irwin said.
"Despite the evidence that two-parent households result in better outcomes for children, my Republican colleagues were not willing to join my effort to enlist more willing adults in the responsibilities of parenthood," Irwin added.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Andy
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
"Roommates," eh? So maybe I should start referring to Mrs. Agema as the representative's roommate, then?
Sparty
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 4:25 a.m.
More Republican intrusion into local government decision making authority. So much for the principle of less government control. This is so discriminatory even the Governor vetoed the language in the budget bill earlier in the year. Let's hope he follows through and vetos this discriminatory and overreaching bill as well!
dlb
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 1:10 a.m.
I am getting tired of all the narrow-minded drivel coming out of Lansing because of the GOP's stranglehold on the state. For a party that wants the gov't to stay out of their pocketbook, they sure like to stick their noses into people's bedrooms. I have never been a fan of domestic partner benefits because it is a cop out. The real issue is allowing gays to carry their partners on their insurance. They certainly should be allowed to do this on all policies, heterosexual couples at least have the option of marriage, but gay couples do not.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 2:49 a.m.
Not even close. I've spent most my life in Ann Arbor, so I know what narrow-minded drivel is.
Terri
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 12:30 a.m.
You know what costs more than same-sex benefits? Uninsured people. Do some actual math, GOP.
Susie Q
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 10:09 p.m.
How did Mark Ouimet vote? He's my rep, he's Republican and almost always votes they way they want him to,
lynel
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.
Susie Q, this isn't really a question. You know the answer. Vote him out next time around.
Roadman
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.
Jeff Irwin is not an attorney and has no business giving an opinion regarding the constitutionality of the legislation that passed the State House. Should he obtain a law degree he may understand the folly of his conclusions. I am confident the judiciary would uphold this legislation. This is because there is no basis for local rule under the State of Michigan Constitution. The Home Rule Act was a legislative enactment that can be overriden by another act of the state legislature. This is little more than political grandstanding by Irwin and Rutledge to satisfy their LGBT constituency.
John Q
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.
None of which justifies your claim that "...there is no basis for local rule under the State of Michigan Constitution." Or you simply don't understand what home rule actually means.
Roadman
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 5:12 a.m.
"........subject to the constitution and law........" Those are the magic words, John Q, that render the state consttution and state statute supreme over the governing bodies of municipalities That is why he EFM law trumps local governments.
John Q
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 2:56 a.m.
The nonsense is the claim that there's no basis for local rule in the state constitution. I hope you're not an attorney because you don't know what you are talking about. Here's the relevant provisions in the state constitution that grant home rule powers to local governments. "The provisions of this constitution and law concerning counties, townships, cities and villages shall be liberally construed in their favor. Powers granted to counties and townships by this constitution and by law shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution." "Under general laws the electors of each city and village shall have the power and authority to frame, adopt and amend its charter, and to amend an existing charter of the city or village heretofore granted or enacted by the legislature for the government of the city or village. Each such city and village shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law. No enumeration of powers granted to cities and villages in this constitution shall limit or restrict the general grant of authority conferred by this section."
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Fri, Sep 16, 2011 : 2:47 a.m.
Nonsense. As citizens, we all have business giving an opinion regarding the Constitutionality of legislation. I don't agree with him, though.
njoy1
Thu, Sep 15, 2011 : 9:29 p.m.
This caught my eye right away, "... we will have two employees working side by side with the same qualifications and experience and the employee living in a traditional family will receive significantly greater compensation," Irwin said. "That is clearly unfair and discriminatory." I imagine a large portion of single, unmarried employees have at times resented the fact that the value of their benefit package is less than their married colleagues- especially when rising health care costs start limiting increases base pay or cause layoffs. My first preference is that we move away from employer provided health care to aone-payer gov't based system-- but that magic wand is broken. After that I would prefer more flexibility for all employees in selecting other adults and/or children to be covered as part of the family. Let it be a parent, sibling, or other unrelated adult. I don't care. If the cost for a married couple with 2 kids is $15k then the single should be allowed to spend $15k to cover anyone in her defined family. That's the fairness point I hope Irwin intended.