![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 8th, 2008 03:47 pmNo benefits for gay partners, court says
The Michigan Supreme Court has confirmed what we've feared for the last several years - public institutions in Michigan can no longer offer benefits (health insurance, etc.) to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees. This includes my employer.
What still bothers me about this whole mess: before the constitutional amendment came up for a vote, its advocates (and its authors!) unambiguously said "no, no, this is only about marriage". Even though the language of the amendment was clearly meant to extend it to things like benefits. And oh, guess what, the advocates and authors were lying. But that doesn't matter because they successfully fooled everybody and nobody is going to hold them to their stated intent.
The Michigan Supreme Court has confirmed what we've feared for the last several years - public institutions in Michigan can no longer offer benefits (health insurance, etc.) to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees. This includes my employer.
What still bothers me about this whole mess: before the constitutional amendment came up for a vote, its advocates (and its authors!) unambiguously said "no, no, this is only about marriage". Even though the language of the amendment was clearly meant to extend it to things like benefits. And oh, guess what, the advocates and authors were lying. But that doesn't matter because they successfully fooled everybody and nobody is going to hold them to their stated intent.
