Senators Alan Cropsey (R-33), Mike Goschka (R-32) and Alan Sanborn (R-11) put forward a resolution in the Michigan Senate in response to the recent ruling by Judge Joyce Dragonchuk, of Ingham County, that Proposal 2 does not prohibit public employers from providing benefits to same-sex domestic partners and their children. The resolution, as adopted, reads:

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 33

A concurrent resolution to urge the Michigan Supreme Court to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo, with regard to same-sex benefits, that was in place prior to the September 28, 2005, 30th Circuit Court ruling in order to prevent the spending of taxpayer monies to fund benefits for homosexual unions until the court has reached a final adjudication.

Whereas, Michigan voters overwhelmingly amended their constitution in November 2004, adding Article I, Section 25, expressing a clear intent that marriage be limited to heterosexual couples and that the “benefits of marriage” be secured for “our society and for future generations”; and

Whereas, Attorney General Cox ruled as early as March 16, 2005, that governmental entities may not offer benefits to same-gender partners, as such a practice is disallowed under Article I, Section 25 of the Michigan Constitution; and

Whereas, Governor Granholm has authorized negotiations with state employees to offer benefits to same-gender people in unions mimicking marriage; and

Whereas, Suit was brought in the 30th Circuit Court asking that the court uphold the ability of governmental entities to offer benefits to homosexual couples in unions that mimic marriage despite the constitutional language; and

Whereas, On September 28, 2005, the 30th Circuit Court ruled, in the case National Pride At Work, et al, v. Jennifer Granholm and Michael A. Cox, that governmental entities could offer benefits to homosexual couples in unions that mimic marriage; and

Whereas, The governor has stated publicly that she intends to implement “quickly” such benefits for state employees in such unions; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That we urge the Michigan Supreme Court to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo, with regard to same-sex benefits, that was in place prior to the September 28, 2005, 30th Circuit Court ruling in order to prevent the spending of taxpayer monies to fund benefits for homosexual unions until the court has reached a final adjudication; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Now, the good news is that this passed resolution does nothing more than document the hatred and disinterest with which the senate regards the well-being of citizens, businesses and organizations of Michigan. Are we really better off with more uninsured citizens and children? Do these politicians really prefer that the burden of insurance premiums and of uninsured citizens fall directly on their communities and other public agencies rather than onto the employees themselves and their employers? The Republican Senators are simply attempting to bully the Michigan Supreme Court into reversing Judge Dragonchuk's decision with an empty resolution that spurs no other actions or implementation. I certainly have no idea how successful they may or may not be. I suspect it may have no effect whatsoever.

It is interesting though, that legislators would choose to limit business owners, governments, employers, unions, anyone and everyone from deciding for themselves how they want to compensate employees. What if an employer decided that employees could add their parents, cousins and best friends to their insurance policies? All employees would have to do is pay the increased premium out of their paycheck. Would we have the senate up in arms about this 'abomination' too? Why is this wrong? Isn't this good? Can't my employer decide how to manage their compsensatory system for themselves? I pay a higher premium to insure my partner just like parents pay more for their kids. What's the big deal?

These Republicans are really quite two-faced about liberty and freedom. It obviously depends whose liberties and freedoms they're talking about. Everyone's freedoms are not equally important in the Michigan Senate.

ADDENDUM: The resolution was passed with a 22-16 vote with no abstentions. Two brave Republican Senators voted against - Senators Beverly Hammerstrom (R-17) and Shirley Johnson (R-13). By my count, that also means that 2 Democrats voted for the resolutions.
- posted by TroutGrrrl @ 2:46 PM | PermaLink | |