Friday, October 13, 2006

What We Have To Look Forward To?

There has been a lot of rhetoric from supporters of Amendment C on what the actual meaning is behind their attempt to make the state not recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.

Along those lines here are a few examples from the mail bag of what supporters of similar bans in other states said when trying to pass the bans and what they did once the bans did indeed pass.

Before
Organization Backing Amendment Said Purpose Was Only to "Define Marriage" Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association in Michigan, dismissed fears that the amendment would impact domestic partnerships. According to The Ann Arbor News, "Glenn called that claim a scare tactic and insists public and private employers would continue to offer domestic-partner benefits if they wanted to." When asked about the threat to domestic partner policies, he said, "Under that policy, every single person currently receiving any kind of benefit would continue to do so." (Jackson Citizen Patriot, 10/23/04, Metro Times, 10/20/04)

Amendment Backer Said It Had “Nothing To Do With Taking Benefits
Away”
: In 2005, Marlene Elwell of Citizens for the Protection of Marriage,
which supported the Michigan amendment, said, “This has nothing to do with
taking benefits away. This is about marriage between a man and a woman.”
CFPM campaign literature also claimed “This is not about rights or
benefits…It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is….”
And CFPM’s attorney, Eric Doster, told both the media and in testimony to
the Michigan Board of State Canvassers that the amendment would not impact
domestic partner contracts. (USA Today, 10/15/04; CFPM campaign literature, Associated Press, 8/24/04)

After
Amendment Backers Sued To Stop University Benefits: In July 2006,
the American Family Association of Michigan filed a lawsuit to stop
Michigan State University from offering health insurance benefits for
domestic partners. The lawsuit argued that the benefits violated the state’s
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
(Detroit Free Press, 6/6/06)

Local Governments In Michigan Prohibited From Granting Domestic
Partner Benefits
: In March 2005, the Michigan state Attorney General
Mike Cox issued an opinion stating that local jurisdictions and
governmental entities, such as school boards, were prohibited from offering
domestic partner benefits to their employees due to the constitutional
amendment passed in 2004. The issue is now before the Michigan Supreme
Court. The American Family Association of Michigan has filed a brief in
support of the attorney general’s position. (Associated Press, 3/16/04)

State Workers In Michigan Denied Domestic Partner Benefits: In
December 2004, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm stripped domestic
partner benefits for same-sex couples for state workers under new union
contracts, citing the “legal cloud” created by the constitutional marriage
amendment. (Detroit Free Press, 12/2/04)

Remember before voting, this Amendment has nothing to do with "protecting the sanctity of marriage" as gay marriage has already been outlawed in South Dakota and what quite possibly could result might have a far greater impact than what the supporters would like you to think.

Discuss this in our forum

No comments:

Post a Comment

Anonymous comments are allowed as long a you pick a pseudonym and stick with it. Posting under multiple names is not permitted and will result in all comments being deleted.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.