Same-sex benefits changing (Michigan)

[brooklynite]

Source: Detroit Free Press

Michigan public employers who have traditionally provided health care and other benefits to the same-sex partners of their workers are gradually changing or dropping coverage after two court rulings that such benefits violate the state's marriage amendment.

But response has differed across the state depending on circumstances, including whether the employees are covered by a union contract and the timing of contract expirations.

This week, the Free Press surveyed high-profile government institutions that had offered the benefits after the City of Kalamazoo announced it would end health care coverage for the partners of gay and lesbian employees on June 30.

...snip...

The state Court of Appeals ruled in February that the marriage amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004 prohibited public employers from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees if the benefits were substantially the same as those provided to the spouses of employees. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of that decision but declined to suspend effect of the appeals decision.



Read more: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070607/NEWS06/706070359/1008

---

I can't say I remember ever reading a Biblical quote about employee benefits...

[yardwork]

1. This makes me cry in frustration and sorrow

Not only is it a step backwards for civil rights, it's a step backwards for public health. Health care benefits more than pay for themselves in reduced costs, as those with access to health care get earlier care that reduces the long-term costs of crisis care, hospitalizations, complications, and early death.

This is STUPID.

[Morgana LaFey]

4. Oh, hey, we can't let a little STUPIDITY stop us from

engaging in our bigotry, now, can we?

:sarcasm:

[donco6]

2. But civil unions are the same as marriage, right?

:sarcasm:

[Orsino]

11. We must protect the sacred institution...

...of call-it-something-else-so-it-gets-fiddled-with-whenever-the-political-wind-shifts.

[Limelight]

3. I know people think this is prompted by homophobia...

But it ain't. It's the same reason companies are dropping health coverage on many of it's workers, gay, straight, black, white, blue with purple polkadots... Out and out corporate greed. The motherf*ckers claim poverty while the CEO's live large making millions (whether company is losing money or not) and can still make tens if not hundreds of millions with their golden parachutes even if it's their sh*tty leadership that leads the company to go belly up.

Please, these guys don't have anything against homosexuals. Hell, they're bi-curious there damn selves. I mean think about it. If you're employed by a major corporation it doesn't matter whether you're a man or a woman, when it comes to making sure they don't have to suffer the humiliation of have a Mercedes that's (gasp) more than 5 years old or have the neighbors talk about them cuz they couldn't afford the extra beach house in Tahiti (cuz the one in Hawaii is so 2 years ago) they're more than willing to f*ck you in the *ss.

All the while this administration cheers them on and video tapes so they can put it up on their myspace for the world to see.

[Morgana LaFey]

5. You're wrong

Anything that negatively affects the GLBT population disproportionately IS due to homophobia. Period. Anything that negatively affects women disproportionately IS due to sexism. Anything that negatively affects minorities disproportionately IS due to racism.

[theHandpuppet]

7. Thank you!

Seems simple, doesn't it? But it's amazing the number of people who still don't get it.

[Morgana LaFey]

10. You're welcome. My plesure.

It is simple -- but not easy. It took me a while to catch on too. It takes some analysis, reflective thought, and reading some good articles or books on the subject doesn't hurt.

[Exiled in America]

6. You are wrong. And you are confusing two different things.

This is not about private enterprise. This is about state agencies. That's what "public employers" means in this context. A private company is free to have WHATEVER benefits system it wants regardless of state laws on marriage.

Challenges to this are not about greed, just like the marriage amendment wasn't about "marriage." It was about people who hate gays exercising their homophobia.

Incidentally, I talk as much about corporate greed as the next guy. But when you just sweep everything under the rug in the name of greed that is an over simplistic approach that doesn't do anyone any good.

I used to work at HP for example. HP has a lot of problems, but what it does have is amazing GLTB support, and awesome benefits. It is under no obligation to do that. And the HP laserjet division is based in Idaho. It could easily use Idaho's anti-gay laws to claim that it doesn't have to pay benefits in the name of greed. But it doesn't. In fact, Chris Bravon (sp?) the head of the Boise Site, has been a regular speaker at Idaho's annual PRIDE rally, talking about the need for fairness and equality in the workplace.

So... saying that "everything" is "always" about greed does harm to the task of addressing the REAL problems of corporate greed - because no one takes you seriously.

This is a problem of homophobia. Plain and simple. Greed, in this case is a secondary factor, not the primary one.

[yardwork]

8. Homophobia is fueled by corporate greed

Who funds the churches that drum the "gays are sinners" meme all the time? Does anyone think that they would care if they weren't constantly told to care?

[LostinVA]

9. You are truly mistaken -- this has everything to do with homophobia