"Protecting" Away Gay Rights
Bigoted Michigan voters who passed the so-called “marriage protection amendment” are yanking more than marriage from gays and lesbians in the state, writes Detroit News metro columnist Laura Berman:
But how much more? And what, really, does it say?Gov. Jennifer Granholm doesn't know. Her minions negotiated same-sex domestic partner health benefits for 50,000 or so state workers beginning next Oct. 5 -- and then she put them on ice last week, citing "the legal cloud," created by the new amendment.
The attorney general doesn't seem to know. His spokesman, Randall Thompson, said nobody at the AG's office has researched the issue. But that's because not a single legislator or state official has asked Mike Cox for a legal opinion on what the amendment means.
He hasn't been asked about those six murky words that gunk up the amendment, making it mean more than a ban on marriage between same-sex partners. No Democrat is likely to ask him and no Republican has.
"If anyone says they know what 'similar union for any purpose,' means, they're either a fool or a liar," insists David Fink, who heads the Office of the State Employer.
So the state and UAW agree they're stuck. They can't, in the governor's words, "move forward," with the new benefits until they get clarification from a court.
But after news stories reported that Granholm had "yanked" the provision, and her office was deluged with angry phone calls and e-mail, she released a statement saying she "continues to support same-sex partner benefits."
What's clear, though, is that civil rights language that's standard across the country is now being scrutinized in state government as if it was weird. Now in doubt are benefits - including tuition discounts, medical and life insurance - that have been in place for Wayne State University employees, for example, for a decade.
Sick. While, as a fiscal fascist, I don't believe in relationship-privileging for anyone (ie, that you get to stick your husband, wife, or partner on your healthcare and your employer or the state picks up the tab), if that option is available to heteros it should be available to everybody.
> if that option is available to heteros
> it should be available to everybody.
So people should be able to pick any single person in the world to receive their benefits?
Presumably, some middle aged bachelor types like myself could designate the Victorville Humane Society for some of my benefits. Or the Morgan County Indiana Chapter of the Klu Klux Klan. Are you sure you want this stuff to be endlessly fungible? I'd just be that there are some behaviors you'd like to encourage and other you'd like to discourage with this wealth.
Cridland at December 5, 2004 10:25 PM
Hi Cridberry --
Remember your funny, sarcastic comment a few days ago -- the one where you feiged surprise:
"Sidney Blumenthal? On Salon? Disparaging Bush? You don't say."
The same kind of comment could apply to you and just about everything you say concerning gays and lesbians. Perhaps you'll boast of your consistency on the issues (as surely as Blumenthal does), but it seems to me that the starting point for all of your comments on gays and lesbians are ideological rather than analytic. That is, you seem very committed to arguing against any position that could be perceived as supportive of queers (which, in turn, seems consistent with your comments on the policies or positions of the Bush administration). It doesn't seem likely that such consistent and predictable behavior would be the result of an open-minded, evidence-based approach. Thus, all of your comments on gays and lesbians are somewhat suspect to me.
Just wanted to share. Keep coming back! And stay safe over the holidays.
Digging your scene,
Lena
PS: I'm in Baltimore next week. Send condolences.
Lena at December 5, 2004 10:59 PM
It's true, my first concern in the morning is not thinking of new ways to be supportive to gays and lesbians. Viewed as a group, they haven't seemed that concerned with anyone else's welfare either.
> all of your comments on gays and lesbians
> are somewhat suspect to me.
And I think you're weak on ag policy, fiscal matters, and education!
Cridland at December 6, 2004 12:58 AM
"my first concern in the morning is not thinking of new ways to be supportive to gays and lesbians. Viewed as a group, they haven't seemed that concerned with anyone else's welfare either."
Oh, great. Now the discussion will likely turn to the enumeration of all sorts of poster-boy-and-girl exceptions to that silly generalization. If I smoked weed, this would be the right time to fire up the bong.
By the way, how am I weak on ag policy, fiscal matters, and education? I'm all ears, sugar.
Lena at December 6, 2004 1:11 AM
Not so much a generalization as a flexible principle; yes, it's ideological.
Cridland at December 6, 2004 4:17 AM
"Not so much a generalization as a flexible principle"
Such nuanced distinctions! Now who's doing bong hits?
Lena at December 6, 2004 4:58 AM
Well, what do you want to hear? I told you want I think. It's not too nuanced or generalized: 'Gay rights' types are not pursuing their ideology, or even their own rhetorical ends, in a ways I find admirable, though there are exceptions. Get the picture?
Cridland at December 6, 2004 5:17 AM
Don't yell at me. I'm not crazy about 'gay rights' (or 'women's rights' or 'black power') types either. The one glimmer of hope in that dark, moist place where your head is stuck is your acknowledgement that there are indeed exceptions to the shrill, gay rights phantasm bumping around your brain. My prescription for what ails you? STOP reading www.andrewsullivan.com. She is a mess.
Lena at December 6, 2004 6:14 AM
C'ain't. Andrew is fun, if you can sit through the moments of what Kaus calls his "excitability"
> that dark, moist place where your head
> is stuck
It's only lightly scented.
Cridland at December 6, 2004 6:39 AM
Fine, read her. But remember: She is not "the gay community." Neither is David Geffen.
I need to sleep now. Have a good week, Mr. Crid.
LENA CUISINA IS THE GAY COMMUNITY at December 6, 2004 6:51 AM
I live in Michigan. For me personally, this new admendmant is a really sad thing. I personally hope that some of the companies that are looking at our state stay out. Hit em where it hurts most, the pocket book.
Bret at December 6, 2004 11:27 PM
Thanks, Bret, for posting. I'm from Michigan, and horrified at it.
Amy Alkon at December 7, 2004 12:42 AM
> he is not "the gay community."
We don't read Andrew because he's gay, we read him because he's conservative.
Cridland at December 7, 2004 3:25 AM
Well, I don't read him because he's gay or conservative. I read him because he has interesting things to say once in a while. And so, by the way, do Sidney Bluthenthal and Mark Cridland.
Lena, the Diversity Quota Queen at December 7, 2004 4:55 AM
Sorry, Sid: BluMENthal.
Lena likes the MEN at December 7, 2004 4:56 AM
Andrew's kind of cute, too, in a furry sort of way, as of late.
Amy Alkon at December 7, 2004 5:28 AM