Washtenaw County voices opposition to ban on domestic partner benefits
As the state House prepares to vote on legislation banning domestic partner benefits for some public employees in Michigan, Washtenaw County is taking a stand.
The county board voted 9-2 Wednesday night to go on record opposing House Bills 4770 and 4771, which advanced in the state Senate hours earlier.
The county joins a growing list of local entities opposing the GOP-backed legislation, including the Ann Arbor City Council, University of Michigan, Eastern Michigan University, and the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Among those who came out to show their support for the county board's stance on Wednesday were state Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor; City Council Member Sandi Smith, D-1st Ward; and Andy LaBarre of the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti Regional Chamber.
Yousef Rabhi
The main bill in the package passed by a 27-9 vote with only Democrats in opposition. It returns with changes to the House, which approved the bill earlier this year.
"This is sending a message to the rest of the world that Michigan is not a friendly place to be and we can't afford to do that," Smith said.
Commissioner Yousef Rabhi, D-Ann Arbor, brought forward the county's resolution, which stirred some debate. It passed 9-2 with Republicans Rob Turner and Dan Smith voting no and suggesting it wasn't an issue the county board should be chiming in on.
Rabhi said he believes it's an issue the county needed to take a stand on as it directly affects county employees. He called it a matter of fairness and equality, and noted the county currently provides domestic partner benefits for nine of its employees.
"Attacking one group is an attack to all of us and I'm firmly opposed to that," Rabhi said.
The pending GOP legislation would prohibit some public employers from extending health benefits to unmarried partners of employees, whether they are of the same sex or opposite sex. It would apply to public schools, local governments and some state employees.
It's being reported that the ban would not apply to public universities, which have constitutional power to determine their own policies. Even though universities are constitutionally autonomous, some remain skeptical that will be enough to keep them immune from the ban.
About 570 adults and 48 children receive domestic partner benefits through the University of Michigan's health care plan.
Ann Arbor offers domestic partner benefits as long as the employee and "other qualified adult" have lived together for 18 months and that currently applies to 12 people.
Rabhi said a state order to discontinue domestic partner benefits would affect the county's ability to hire and retain the kind of talented staff needed to run county government.
"We need the best and the brightest, and we cannot do that if we can only extend benefits to different-sex couples," he said. "We need to be able to offer benefits to other qualified adults, to same-sex couples, to domestic partners. We need to be able to give any employee that comes to work for the county the kind of benefits that any other employee would get."
Doing otherwise, Rabhi said, would constitute discrimination.
"We cannot discriminate and we should not be forced to by the state, and that's what we're taking a stance on," he said.
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 e-mail newsletters.
Comments
Doug
Fri, Dec 9, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
Anyone who wants to "shack up' with whomever should pay their own way!
jayjay
Fri, Dec 9, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.
A reply to XMO -- The fear that people have of non-heterosexual behavior is not a question of reps vs dems. There are idiots in both parties that will always support discrimination against those who are different. It just depends on which difference you are considering. Hate is not a political party specific idealogy. But, yes, hate is definitely bi-partisan. So does that make it right?
jayjay
Fri, Dec 9, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
Just please tell which religion is the true religion and why it is so?
jayjay
Fri, Dec 9, 2011 : 12:22 p.m.
It pains me that a state as supposedly enlightened as Michigan could pass such absolutely frivolous and discriminatory legislation. It all starts from the premise that any other sexual orientation than heterosexual is an option, and that it can be changed, that a person can opt out. This is absolute insanity. And in the 20th century. What is the fear that so many people have against non-heterosexuals that they feel the need to force their own beliefs and lifestyle upon them, even through legislation. Banning same sex benefits is not going to change homosexual behavior. It is not an option; it is not a question of religion. That homosexuals exist and wish to co-exist does not mean that the children and grandchildren of heterosexuals will be "contaminated and get the disease". There is no disease to get. Even with apprehension this will be taken out of context, I will compare alternative life styles to addiction. Look at alcohol, for example. Abusing alcohol has very negative consequences, but once again, it is not simply a question of choice, or that those who do not abuse it are somehow stronger or better than others. So in the 1920's we introduce prohibition -- and what is the impact. Over night alcohol drinking and abuse stopped 100%, right? The nation was better off, everyone came to his/her senses, and the church pews were overflowing on Sundays as these "bad" people came back to God. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Legislating morality has never worked. And legislating morality and/or religion because someone thinks sexual behavior must be of a certain nature will not work either. Again, what is the big fear people have? Like all types of discrimination, the issue is "They are different". They think differently, they act differently, they look different from me, therefore they must be wrong because I am right. It is a zero sum game in their minds -- just like the true religion -- just please tell me which
bedrog
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 4:22 p.m.
That's good , commissioners... .Now restore HSHV funding to be yourselves restored to full 'mensch.- dom"
Sparty
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 3:12 p.m.
The USA makes foreign aid decisions partially based on a country's treatment of its LGBT population, and yet Michigan dishonors itself with this hateful, discriminatory, mean spirited bill banning health care benefits to domestic partners. Let's hope the Governor sees the ridicule the passage of this bill will cause him and this State nationally as well as the expensive litigation sure to result. For shame.
hut hut
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
How many jobs will be made with a ban on domestic partner benefits? How many wage earners, tax payers and good citizens will leave the state because of the loss of their partners benefits?
Meg
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
Since the same concerns keep showing up over and over again, here's the response to the unfounded concern about insurance fraud: First of all, fraud in establishing OQA status is insurance fraud, and carries with it the possibility of repaying all premiums paid and all benefits received. The requirements for Washtenaw County are here: <a href="http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/boc/agenda/wm/year_2007/2007-09-19wm/2007-09-19wm9" rel='nofollow'>http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/boc/agenda/wm/year_2007/2007-09-19wm/2007-09-19wm9</a> For U-M, are here: <a href="http://www.benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html</a> For the record, establishing partnership is MUCH more difficult than establishing marriage -- for which most jobs will take your word, with or without a marriage license -- and much more costly. Additionally, same-sex partners receiving benefits (and their children) create imputed income for the insured partner, requiring them to pay taxes on the value of the benefits received. It's hardly a free ride.
Meg
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
grye, I'm not interested in "playing house". I'm interested in having my marriage to my wife, a legal contract we entered into in the state of Iowa, recognized by my home state as required by the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Constitution. And I've been in a legally-recognized marriage. You have no clue how much privilege is conferred on a heterosexual married couple until you've experienced that privilege from both sides. Thanks for the condescension, though! I'm sorry you don't have anything better to offer.
grye
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.
Sorry Meg, there is plenty of insurance fraud, even within those that are married. Give someone and inch and they will be happy to take a mile. You have issue with burdens accompanying an establishing a partnership/relationship that would be recognized by the State. Well welcome the real world of maried couples. Want to play house? Then suffer the good and the bad.
Another Michael
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
Great info, Meg. "[S]ame-sex partners receiving benefits (and their children) create imputed income for the insured partner, requiring them to pay taxes on the value of the benefits received. It's hardly a free ride." This is a fact that not enough people, even those sympathetic to the struggle for equality, are aware of.
Meg
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
A fine for speeding is possible $100-200. Repaying costs for, say, an uncomplicated pregnancy and birth would run around $14,000. For a baby in the NICU, a half-million dollars isn't unusual. Even a simple ER visit for a fracture costs several thousand dollars in hospital and professional fees. Perceived risk absolutely plays a role in whether people will break the law. Otherwise, the argument that the death penalty serves as a deterrent sounds a little hollow, doesn't it?
jcj
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
"First of all, fraud in establishing OQA status is insurance fraud, and carries with it the possibility of repaying all premiums paid and all benefits received." Right fraud never happens because of the penalties! Not! Advance your argument in any other way but leave this one out. Its like saying if you don't obey the speed limit sign you will pay a fine.
Meg
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
Because it's fashionable this year to disguise homophobia as budget concern.
Forever27
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
here's a question too, why are people so concerned with the possibility of someone else having insurance? Even if they are committing fraud by claiming to be partners if they're not, they're still paying premiums. it's not like they're stealing the insurance.
grye
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.
The bill reduces the opportunity of fraud should any 2 people living under the same roof will be able to claim benefits, regardless if they are in a relationship or not. Since same sex marriage is not allowed, then there should be an opportunity to register / unregister a relationship for same sex couples to allow benefits. The registering of a relationship should also affect tax and other govenmental rules.
xmo
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.
The Michigan Senate is composed of 26 Republicans and 12 Democrats. The vote was 27-9 in favor of the bill. This means that it had BI-PARTISAN support i.e. both democrats and republicans voted for it. Sounds to me like the matter is settled in the senate. With the house having a 62 to 47 majority of republicans to democrats it looks like the bill will pass with BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT!
Sparty
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
Wow, one Democrat supported the bill. That shows bipartisanship? Not in any true, meaningful way, but continue on with the mean spirited defense of this hateful bill.
Another Michael
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
If Michigan certified same-sex marriages, then the conversation about whether domestic partner benefits are a responsible use of taxpayer dollars might be worth having. Given the current arrangement, it's disingenuous for the state legislature to say this is about fiscal responsibility. How convenient that it selectively punishes those who don't meet the approval of the christianists in Lansing. Good for the county board, and the others who have expressed their dissent.
antikvetch
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 1:38 p.m.
"The main bill in the package passed by a 27-9 vote with only Democrats in opposition." Do these numbers indicate that at least one Democrat voted FOR the bill? Awkward!
Sparty
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
Wow, one Democrat supported the bill. That shows bipartisanship? Not in any true, meaningful way, but continue on with the mean spirited defense of this hateful bill.
keepitbalanced
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
Just a question... How is a person "qualified." The article states that you must be living together for 18 months, but how do you actually prove that. Is there verbiage that someone prevents someone from stating they are a domestic partner just so they can receive benefits?
Meg
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 : 2:05 p.m.
First of all, fraud in establishing OQA status is insurance fraud, and carries with it the possibility of repaying all premiums paid and all benefits received. The requirements for Washtenaw County are here: <a href="http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/boc/agenda/wm/year_2007/2007-09-19wm/2007-09-19wm9" rel='nofollow'>http://www.ewashtenaw.org/government/boc/agenda/wm/year_2007/2007-09-19wm/2007-09-19wm9</a> For U-M, are here: <a href="http://www.benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.benefits.umich.edu/eligibility/oqa.html</a> For the record, establishing partnership is MUCH more difficult than establishing marriage -- for which most jobs will take your word, with or without a marriage license -- and much more costly. Additionally, same-sex partners receiving benefits (and their children) create imputed income for the insured partner, requiring them to pay taxes on the value of the benefits received. It's hardly a free ride.