Michigan Supreme Court rules state can't offer gay partners health benefits

Source: AP

LANSING -- The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that governments and state universities can't offer health insurance to the partners of gay workers.

The court ruled 5-2 Wednesday that Michigan's 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner policies affecting the partners of gay employees at the University of Michigan and other public-sector employers.

The decision affirms a 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.


Read more: http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/05/michigan_supreme_court_rules_s.html

---

A sad day. More rights lost.

:grr: :nuke: :grr:

Do you mean to tell me if a couple has current benefits,they will no longer?Bastards.

if possible. Look at Ave Maria Mutual Funds, one of their three investing matters is not allowing same-gender benefits at work. It is beyond sickening. :puke:

equal rights, civil rights, etc., because the courts were there to protect us.

didn't believe it then, and most certainly do not believe it now.

We have civil rights, voting rights legislation, we don't need the ERA.

even business lose their right (obligation) to care for employees under this ruling.

I hope there is an exodus of government workers, and of state college and university employees. Let the talent and experience go to another state with a more friendly atmosphere.

The next logical step is to convince enough voters that this was a mistake and have a vote to repeal.

I imagine the next thing I'll see here is the ban extending to any benefits. We were all warned, but so many people thought it was hyperbole.

What fresh hell is this?

this is the logical application of the voter's will, from that stupid ballot proposal a few years ago.

The governor tried to fight it, but there is nothing anyone can do through the courts about a voter initiative such as that. A new voter inititative would be needed to either get rid of the old one (not going to happen in this state at this time) or modify this one to allow benefits.

My problem is this: I have no problem with benefits for partners of gays, but I do with unmarried straight people who shack up. Gays can't get married-if they could, I'd be against giving benefits to anyone who isn't married. But as gays are not allowed to get married, I have no problem with extending benefits to partners in long-term relationships.

For a start: SINGLE PAYER HEALTH COVERAGE

:banghead:

But also the disclaimer: Does not apply to minorities, women, or homosexuals. You must be christian for "freedom, liberty, and justice" to apply.

Thankfully though, people in my generation, we will run this country in a few years, and we'll cause a surge in depressed christians with our liberty and freedom for ALL.

a renowned young gay scholoar in the field of nanotechnology because of that state's refusal to allow domestic partner benefits. Prior to his departure- during the legislative debates over the issue- several schools were doing everything they could to secure this researcher.

He ended up taking all of his staff scientists and his entire multi-million dollar research portfolio to Penn, who offered him and his domestic partner benefits without hesitation.

If public institutions continue to pass laws such as these, you will find some of the nation's top gay researches pushed into the welcoming hands of the Ivy League and other renowned private schools.