Mich. high court says gay partners can't get health benefits

[auntAgonist]

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-53/121017504644810.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

5/7/2008, 12:40 p.m. EDT
By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks governments and state universities from offering health insurance to the partners of gay workers.

The 5-2 decision affirms a state Court of Appeals ruling.

Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments in Michigan have benefits policies covering at least 375 gay couples. Some of the plans began as far back as the early 1990s.

After the appeals court ruled in February 2007, universities and governments rewrote their policies to try to comply with the gay marriage ban — so the effect of Wednesday's decision was unclear.

The new policies no longer specifically acknowledge domestic partnerships but make sure "other qualified adults," including gay partners, are eligible for medical and dental care. The adults have to live together for a certain amount of time, be unmarried, share finances and be unrelated.

[JackintheGreen]

1. Can't employers insure whomever they damn well please?

They try to limit it where they can, for costs, but if they choose to include gay partners, who the fuck is the state to say no? :mad:

I just learned that my Teamsters contract covers domestic partners (good on the Teamsters!), and I know they don't unionize state workers, but they deliver to the state. If the Teamsters protested this, MI would shut down.

[SharonAnn]

2. Many of these employers are state government entities. Universities, state offices, etc.

[JackintheGreen]

3. I understand that

but they are still employers.

I think it is the wording of it that bothers me most. The decision "bars" state employers from covering domestic partners. They can't do it, even if they want to.

[MNBrewer]

5. It bars employers that are state government entities

Not all employers in the state.

[JackintheGreen]

8. Again, I understand the law as described

it's somehow better because only state agencies are barred from covering partners?

[Ms. Toad]

6. In Ohio, it's called a constitutional amendment

that prohibits state recognition of a relationship equivalent to marriage. The employers are the state, in this case, and they can't grant rights without acknowledging that the relationship exists (unless they also allow coverage for individuals other than the employee's spouse or children - such as parents, siblings, etc.)

It also does such wacky things as make it impossible for me to get a divorce (not that I want a divorce). In order to be heard in court, they would have to acknowledge that I am actually married (in Canada a couple of years ago) - but they can't do acknowledge I am married because the marriage discrimination amendment prohibits that - so they can't grant a divorce. As a consequence of the amendment, I am both more (can't get a divorce) and less (don't get the state/federal benefits) married than heterosexual couples in this state.

It shouldn't impact private employers - the only potential impact is that if your employer entered into a contract providing domestic partner benefits the court could decide that it enforcing the contract would require state recognition of the domestic partnerships. Not likely to happen, since it is unlikely that you would have a contractual right to benefits that your employer decided not to honor.

Edited to add that even if your employer decides to provide coverage the insurance company is not required to permit you to cover domestic partners (most insurers for employers with fewer than 50 people do not provide domestic partner coverage).

[xchrom]

4. ...

:grr: :nuke: :grr:

[mitchtv]

7. Pride @ Work Deplores Michigan Court Decision

PRIDE AT WORK

Dear

Pride @ Work Deplores Michigan Court Decision Barring Domestic Partnership for Public-Sector Workers

WASHINGTON, DC- Pride @ Work, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) constituency group of the AFL-CIO, deplored today?s decision by the Michigan Supreme Court against domestic partner benefits for the same-sex partners of public employees.

"It is unfortunate that the high court chose to put the most discriminatory possible interpretation on the state constitution," said Cheryl Bollinger, co-vice president of Pride @ Work and a leader of P@W's Michigan chapter.

"Fortunately, Pride @ Work has led the way in developing flexible alternatives to domestic partner benefits that would allow public employees to designate an adult beneficiary for health and other benefits," Bollinger added. "We hope that public-sector employers in Michigan will move quickly to implement such a designated beneficiary system."

"This a fundamental compensation equity issue," Bollinger said, "and Michigan is best served when all employees, regardless of their affectional orientation or gender identity, have equal access to benefits which protect their families,"

The Michigan Supreme Court's action also pointed to the dangers posed by right-wing ballot initiatives to prohibit same-sex marriage in several other states. While proponents of such measures to ban marriage equality often argue that they will not affect negotiated domestic partnership benefits, today's decision shows otherwise. Public-sector workers from Florida to California, where such initiatives are under way, could face the loss of benefits for their partners.

"It's time for the entire labor movement to rise to the defense of LGBT workers," said Pride @ Work co-President T Santora.

The Michigan Supreme Court decision upheld an appellate court ruling that a 2004 amendment to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage also prohibits health insurance and other benefits for LGBT families.

Pride @ Work filed suit on behalf of its Michigan members after municipalities and other public employers began dropping domestic partner benefits in the wake of the 2004 state constitutional amendment. A trial court ruled in favor of Pride @ Work?s suit, but that decision was overturned by a state appeals court.

Michigan's courts have grown increasingly conservative since three-term Republican Governor John Engler appointed right-wing jurists to the state bench.

#30#

For further information, please contact Pride at Work Executive Director Jeremy Bishop at 202-637-5014, or [e-mail], or Pride at Work Communications Director Donna Cartwright at 202-637-3988 or [e-mail].

[Tyler Durden]

9. THIS is how it starts.....

And where it STOPS? Usually with an auto da fe.

[Zuiderelle]

10. Just lovely. Bigotry written into law.

Now we force progressive employers to be bigoted whether they choose to or not. It's not enough that domestic partner benefits are no match for before-tax spousal benefits, or that we pay additional tax based on the employer portion of the benefit, no... we shouldn't even have THAT. We have no right to cover our partners under our benefits AT ALL, even at tremendous cost.

All to discriminate against "at least 375 gay couples." Oh those dangerous 375 couples!

Fuck.

[Siyahamba]

11. They must figure Michigan isn't losing people fast enough.

Now they want to chase all the gays out of the state too.