MI high court says gay partners can’t get health benefits
Posted on May 08, 2008 at 01:54 pm
Associated Press
May 7, 2008
An anti-marriage constitutional amendment prevents governments and universities in Michigan from providing health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. (Link)
May 7, 2008
An anti-marriage constitutional amendment prevents governments and universities in Michigan from providing health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. (Link)
Michigan ruling stirs advocates in Florida
Posted on May 08, 2008 at 01:51 pm
Miami Herald
May 8, 2008
Opponents of an anti-marriage amendment in Florida point to a Michigan court decision against allowing health benefits for domestic partners as an example of what the proposed amendment in Florida will do to further discrimination and inequality. (Link)
May 8, 2008
Opponents of an anti-marriage amendment in Florida point to a Michigan court decision against allowing health benefits for domestic partners as an example of what the proposed amendment in Florida will do to further discrimination and inequality. (Link)
OPINION: No one’s benefit in MI
Posted on Jul 09, 2007 at 04:19 pm
The Michigan Daily
July 9, 2007
When Michigan voters passed the discriminator ban on gay and lesbian couples' marriages in 2004, they made a mistake. When Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox used his position to further his personal beliefs and ban same-sex benefits as well, he made the voters' mistake much worse. Now, the University is in a tough spot as it must mitigate these realities. Its attempts to deal with the dumb law and Cox's dumber interpretations are flawed. The only solution is that Michigan voters must abolish the nonsensical "gay marriage" ban. [link]
July 9, 2007
When Michigan voters passed the discriminator ban on gay and lesbian couples' marriages in 2004, they made a mistake. When Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox used his position to further his personal beliefs and ban same-sex benefits as well, he made the voters' mistake much worse. Now, the University is in a tough spot as it must mitigate these realities. Its attempts to deal with the dumb law and Cox's dumber interpretations are flawed. The only solution is that Michigan voters must abolish the nonsensical "gay marriage" ban. [link]
A way to keep domestic partner benefits in MI
Posted on Jun 15, 2007 at 04:27 pm
Inside Higher Ed
June 15, 2007
Michigan's public colleges and universities were barred by a state appeals court in February from offering health and other benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of employees. So Michigan State University is trying another tack: extending benefits to people it labels "other eligible individuals." [Link]
June 15, 2007
Michigan's public colleges and universities were barred by a state appeals court in February from offering health and other benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of employees. So Michigan State University is trying another tack: extending benefits to people it labels "other eligible individuals." [Link]
MI court: No same-sex benefits
Posted on Feb 02, 2007 at 04:30 pm
San Francisco Gate
February 2, 2007
A three-judge panel said a 2004 discriminatory measure against gay and lesbian couples also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge who said universities and governments could provide the benefits. [Link]
February 2, 2007
A three-judge panel said a 2004 discriminatory measure against gay and lesbian couples also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge who said universities and governments could provide the benefits. [Link]
Michigan Dems: Repeal Proposal 2
Posted on Sep 07, 2006 at 04:32 pm
PrideSource
September 7, 2006
Saying that Proposal 2 "adds discrimination to our State Constitution," the party has called for its repeal. In addition, as it did in 2004, the party's platform calls for a number of other progressive actions, including recognizing the adoption rights of same-sex couples. [Link]
September 7, 2006
Saying that Proposal 2 "adds discrimination to our State Constitution," the party has called for its repeal. In addition, as it did in 2004, the party's platform calls for a number of other progressive actions, including recognizing the adoption rights of same-sex couples. [Link]