Michigan Court: No Same-Sex Benefits

Michigan Court: No Same-Sex Benefits

There are 94 comments on the The Associated Press story from Feb 2, 2007, titled Michigan Court: No Same-Sex Benefits . In it, The Associated Press reports that:

Public universities and state and local governments would violate the state constitution by providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Associated Press.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
john

Grand Rapids, MI

#1 Feb 2, 2007
so....."for any purpose"....if 2 brothers wanted to purchase property together, would a public office like the Register of Deeds be prohibited from accepting the filing since they are both of the same genderand they're filing at a governmental office? What about 2 friends that want to open a business and obtain a DBA? How loosely can they interpret "for any purpose"????

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#2 Feb 2, 2007
john wrote:
so....."for any purpose"....if 2 brothers wanted to purchase property together, would a public office like the Register of Deeds be prohibited from accepting the filing since they are both of the same genderand they're filing at a governmental office? What about 2 friends that want to open a business and obtain a DBA? How loosely can they interpret "for any purpose"????
did you actually read what you wrote before you posted it?
Carlie

United States

#3 Feb 2, 2007
Besides a part of the society being kicked in the for doing nothing wrong but loving someone (isn't that better than causing millions of innocent people to die) economically it is a loss for the state. Countries that provide regular benefits for domestic partners have not suffered but are indeed far more stable.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#4 Feb 2, 2007
Carlie wrote:
Besides a part of the society being kicked in the for doing nothing wrong but loving someone (isn't that better than causing millions of innocent people to die) economically it is a loss for the state. Countries that provide regular benefits for domestic partners have not suffered but are indeed far more stable.
The euro's stronger than the dollar, and America deserves it.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#5 Feb 2, 2007
And I say keep challenging it and challenging it and challenging it. Challenge it until they want to puke. Challenge it until they're sitting in corners, trembling and weeping. Don't let up and make it something which obviously *becomes*, in the *public eye*, so endless and determined a fight that *THAT* impression of the issue becomes the predominant one. That, in fact, the predominant and overriding impression of the issue is of one *which specifically and literally will not go away, ever, for the next year; the next five years; the next ten years; the next fifty years*.

That's how it's done, and in the end ... victory prevails. And it prevails because the impression of what's going on *is changed BY* a refusal to give up until the goal is reached.

It's simply unfortunate that it can take a long time, because very, very sadly, the world is populated by many billions -- not millions, but billions -- of idiots amongst those who are not.
John Coates

United States

#6 Feb 2, 2007
This is what happens when the republicians and the religious right lie to the people of michigan. Maybe it's time to try and repeal this unfair law!!
kbsurfer

Hacienda Heights, CA

#7 Feb 2, 2007
Our courts are becoming ridiculous puppets for misguided Americans who do not even deserve to be called Americans due to their lack of knowledge of America's Constitution or Bill of Rights. The entire gay marriage debacle has flushed out how many of our judges are unfit to interpret either document just as certainly as AIDS exposed a fraction of how many gay people there are. Likewise, it has also exposed just how few people understand what marriage is legally about (the moral reasons are clearly, and legally, left up to the individual). There is no state in this Union that requires any marriage to produce children in order to be valid. Not one. Therefore there is no legally valid reason to restrict marriage and all of its legally binding obligations and rights to only a male and female American citizen. There is no religious marriage ceremony that is valid without a civil certificate of recognition, regarldess of any additional personally recognized religious requirements, which is a clear indication that equal rights, according to the Bill of Rights, is always to be pre-eminent over any personal religious particulars. As Americans we are endowed with the right to express and practice our religion, but nowhere is the right given to anyone,expressly or implied, individaully or collectively, with the right to enforce any religion or any of it's precepts on any other citizen of this country.
Every time I hear of a judge who even allows this sort of issue to clog up the system is a reminder of the blatant, horrible betrayal of this country perpertrated by those who are meant to protect it.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#8 Feb 3, 2007
I'm so glad you wrote this because, no matter how anyone may argue the *particulars* of what you said, it is so true. My favorite things about it are that it is *so* unapologetic, calls everything exactly as it sees it, and uses the term "judge" in a more general and *true* sense which highlights the huge, huge, huge hypocrisy of people whining and crying and mewling and weeping that "liberalist judges are defying the will of the American people." People attempting to make equality ILLEGAL are defying the will of AMERICA as a construct.

“We're heeeerrrrrrreee! !!!”

Since: Dec 06

United States

#9 Feb 3, 2007
John Coates wrote:
This is what happens when the republicians and the religious right lie to the people of michigan. Maybe it's time to try and repeal this unfair law!!
Absolutly!!!!!
kbsurfer

Hacienda Heights, CA

#10 Feb 3, 2007
rdg1234 wrote:
I'm so glad you wrote this because, no matter how anyone may argue the *particulars* of what you said, it is so true. My favorite things about it are that it is *so* unapologetic, calls everything exactly as it sees it, and uses the term "judge" in a more general and *true* sense which highlights the huge, huge, huge hypocrisy of people whining and crying and mewling and weeping that "liberalist judges are defying the will of the American people." People attempting to make equality ILLEGAL are defying the will of AMERICA as a construct.
I agree, completely. I personally cannot stand hypocrisy, and any form that "so-called" self-marketing individuals use to mislead and shame Americans, who claim to speak for Americans. In it's worst form, it is a hijacking; in it's least form, it is misleading. We have gone so far, judicailly and politically, from the median that the Bill of Rights establishes that we are pretty much a shame unto ourselves.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#11 Feb 3, 2007
kbsurfer wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, completely. I personally cannot stand hypocrisy, and any form that "so-called" self-marketing individuals use to mislead and shame Americans, who claim to speak for Americans. In it's worst form, it is a hijacking; in it's least form, it is misleading. We have gone so far, judicailly and politically, from the median that the Bill of Rights establishes that we are pretty much a shame unto ourselves.
Oh, the sentiment has reached other shores, as well, believe me. While there are positive opinions amongst foreigners of Americans, there are also opinions that Americans are childish and backward. We are *NOT*, at all, viewed as the "most forward-thinking" country in the world, and we deserve to be seen not as such, in my opinion. I mean,*look at us*.

Since: Feb 07

Jamesville, NC

#12 Feb 8, 2007
Unfortunately this is only going to snowball. If only we, as a race, were to focus on things that REALLY need fixing, we'd all be in a better place. It pains me that we're so tied up in knots about this - it should be a no-brainer... and yet, the no-brainers are really putting the screws to us. It just boggles my mind.

I worry that this will escalate, as our opponents have done - eventually a greater show of solidarity will need to occur. As of now, we're still too scattered - hopefully that'll change once the real hurt starts. And I do believe we'll get there, sooner than later.
Sopot

Ottawa, IL

#13 Feb 8, 2007
No one has been able to explain just why others should have to subsidize homosexuality against their will.
Deb

AOL

#14 Feb 8, 2007
Sopot wrote:
No one has been able to explain just why others should have to subsidize homosexuality against their will.
Thank you for once again exposing the hate, bigotry, illogic, and anti-religious defamtion that lie at the base of the homosexual "marriage" movement.HATE SPEECH, INDECENCY. Why do you endless post the same lies? This jerk doesn't.

Why are you so filled with hate? Silly paranoid. Again, you've made an idiotic post. It is a political charade and an attack on democracy itself. You are a very hateful, bigot, endlessly and fanatically spewing hate at all who disagree with your narrow vision of things with the "god" you've created in your own image.

Again, you've made a completely illogical post. If you were trying to represent yourself and your hate based cause such lewd displays are positive for your hate based cause.

What makes you think you have a "right" to force a radical heterosexual philosophy of "marriage" on others?
What makes you think you have a "right" to force a radical heterosexual philosophy of "marriage" on others?
What makes you think you have a "right" to force a radical heterosexual philosophy of "marriage" on others?
What makes you think you have a "right" to force a radical heterosexual philosophy of "marriage" on others?
Error....error....error...it does not compute....

Since: Feb 07

Jamesville, NC

#15 Feb 8, 2007
Sopot wrote:
No one has been able to explain just why others should have to subsidize homosexuality against their will.
Because we as humans are a community - as a gay man, I pay taxes that subsidize children, faith based initiatives, and other places that enrich ALL our lives. As a fellow human being, we should all try to help each other.

As examples; whether or not you agree with the Iraq war, or helping drug addicts, providing sex education, or keeping people in prison - your tax dollars go into a pool for everyone. It shouldn't be any different for us. And I believe it's been proven that providing domestic partnership benefits don't cost more than without, but it helps others, even if it's only 1% of the population. Think of it this way - buy one 99 health benefits and get one free.
rdg1234

Pottstown, PA

#16 Feb 8, 2007
Sopot wrote:
No one has been able to explain just why others should have to subsidize homosexuality against their will.
1. It's been explained repeatedly to you. You have ignored every last explanation. I am puzzled why you *LIE POINTBLANK* and say it hasn't been explained. My only explanation is that you enjoy lying.

After all, you do it all over the boards.

2. "[S]ubsidize homosexuality against their will" is a *MIS*representation of what's going on from a one-sided and viciously *ANTI-gay* viewpoint. But as I said in #1, you enjoy lying.

So guess what I do? I call you what you are.

Bites for you, huh.
Bill

Evansville, WI

#17 Feb 8, 2007
MD in CT wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we as humans are a community - as a gay man, I pay taxes that subsidize children, faith based initiatives, and other places that enrich ALL our lives. As a fellow human being, we should all try to help each other.
As examples; whether or not you agree with the Iraq war, or helping drug addicts, providing sex education, or keeping people in prison - your tax dollars go into a pool for everyone. It shouldn't be any different for us. And I believe it's been proven that providing domestic partnership benefits don't cost more than without, but it helps others, even if it's only 1% of the population. Think of it this way - buy one 99 health benefits and get one free.
That doesn't explain why others should have to subsidize homosexuality against their will.

You have equal access to all available benefits, but why should you receive discriminatory benefits and subsides solely based on YOUR lifestyle choice?

Why should a homosexual "couple" receive discriminatory benefits and subsidies that sisters sharing a home don't get?

Why should single mothers be taxed more to pay for the discriminatory subsidies and benefits you demand?

Don't feel badly if you can't provide a logical response. No one else has, either.
Wal-Mart Shopper

United States

#18 Feb 8, 2007
What I see is another state in the Anti-Same Sex Marriage column. It looks like it is going to come down to a state by state decision. There is a Federal DOMA law and this could be motivating the states. It is also a hot potatoe of a political issue that will be brought to the for front by the liberals in their quest for power. As I see it, in the up and coming political wars, the liberals are going to throw the Gays under the bus because no matter which way you slice it, they are the elephant in the room for them. The conservative position was very clearly defined by Bush and will stay stead fast. This will cause a Democratic war within the party that is going to cause them giagantic headaches and maybe even the election.
Bip

Evansville, WI

#19 Feb 8, 2007
Wal-Mart Shopper wrote:
What I see is another state in the Anti-Same Sex Marriage column. It looks like it is going to come down to a state by state decision. There is a Federal DOMA law and this could be motivating the states. It is also a hot potatoe of a political issue that will be brought to the for front by the liberals in their quest for power. As I see it, in the up and coming political wars, the liberals are going to throw the Gays under the bus because no matter which way you slice it, they are the elephant in the room for them. The conservative position was very clearly defined by Bush and will stay stead fast. This will cause a Democratic war within the party that is going to cause them giagantic headaches and maybe even the election.
Yes. It was the Village Idiot of Hope, Arkasas, that signed our federal definition of marriage as solely betweeon one man and one woman, with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in Congress. A majority of states now have state consitutional amendments in place to prevent already illegal homosexual "marriage," with MANY more in process.

Momentum is killing homosexual "marriage," which homosexuals themselves have never participated in in any significant percentage in any nation that has enacted it.

Homosexual "marriage" is a failed pubic policy and will soon just be a past oddity in the politicy history of America.

Since: Feb 07

Meriden, CT

#20 Feb 8, 2007
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't explain why others should have to subsidize homosexuality against their will.
You have equal access to all available benefits, but why should you receive discriminatory benefits and subsides solely based on YOUR lifestyle choice?
Why should a homosexual "couple" receive discriminatory benefits and subsidies that sisters sharing a home don't get?
Why should single mothers be taxed more to pay for the discriminatory subsidies and benefits you demand?
Don't feel badly if you can't provide a logical response. No one else has, either.
Ah, but they do - sisters are immediate family and can make medical choices, are part of inheritance, and have legal recourse if necessary.

btw - your usage of discriminatory is incorrect - discriminatory is defined as: characterized by or showing prejudicial treatment, esp. as an indication of racial, religious, or sexual bias. And before you mess that up some more, prejudicial is defined as: causing prejudice or disadvantage. Your attitude to deprive me and my partner (of 24 years) of fundamental rights is discriminatory and prejudicial. Both explain YOUR attitude, not mine or my desires. Have a SUPER day.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ingham County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ingham County Arrest Mugshots and Criminal Records (Oct '16) Oct '16 Eric 2
News Crime Stoppers: 4 people wanted for felonies (Nov '15) Nov '15 Nhgfdyu 1
News Lawyer's rants against gay student not protecte... (Jan '15) Jan '15 Xstain Mullah Fri... 10
Skinny Minnie Home For Christmas (Jan '15) Jan '15 Amiga 1
News MSU Student Charged with Felony, Accused of Mak... (Nov '14) Nov '14 Pssdov 1
News Judge refuses to dismiss stand-your-ground case... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Terri 1
News Lansing teen whose body was found in river was ... (Dec '12) May '14 Sneaky Pete 13
More from around the web