From the Daily: No one's benefit
State law leaves 'U' in a tough spot
- Page 1 of 1
The problem with the University's same-sex benefits policy goes back to the Michigan ballot initiative in 2004 that banned gay marriage and civil unions. Although this shouldn't have affected the University's benefits policy, Cox made it so. Subsequently, the state Supreme Court ruled last February that the University and other public institutions must follow this interpretation.
So it was back to the drawing board for the University. Instead of specifically providing benefits to same-sex couples, it expanded its benefits policy to include anyone that meets a list of criteria. These criteria, which denote an "other qualified adult," specify that to receive benefits one must cohabitate with the partner for at least six months, share a joint bank account, be a primary beneficiary of the partner's will and possess the power of attorney.
While this is exactly the type of benefit policy that the University should be providing to same-sex couples, there is one big catch: The new policy also states that non-married heterosexual couples are only eligible for benefits if they marry. This is a hypocritical, discriminatory stance by the University against unwed couples, but what choice does the University have? Striving for inclusiveness, it has inadvertently taken an exclusive stance.
Although the effort to equalize the distribution of benefits within the law is flawed, its failure is not due to the University's own views but the insurmountable obstacle of Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. It is an unconstitutional law, stretched by Cox and the state Supreme Court to further block the rights of same-sex couples.
While it is a strong public institution, the University doesn't have the power to protect those who should already be protected by state and federal law. It's time for the state's voters to take responsibility for their mistake and abolish the gay marriage ban.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 16
Elaine
posted 7/09/07 @ 5:58 PM EST
I think we can all be happy for Patricia A. Gozemba. But listen carefully to what she is saying "Seventy-five percent of our legislature plus one agree that the populace should not be voting on gay people's civil rights. (Continued…)
Peter Frank
posted 7/10/07 @ 8:56 AM EST
When looking at populace vote versus legislative votes there is often a discrepancy. Why? Because the legislature has to answer to the press and get scrutinized for every decision they make when going to work. (Continued…)
Chris
posted 7/10/07 @ 10:42 AM EST
I guess I support two females having relations because it makes for good porn, but what is the deal with two guys doing it anally? Who wants that??!?! And other thing, I sure would not want to be adopted and raised by two gay guys who think they should have a right to raise a child. (Continued…)
Eddie
posted 7/10/07 @ 1:04 PM EST
This is the homosexual activist's and Uof M's latest addition to their litany of woes.
Democracy Sucks
posted 7/10/07 @ 3:30 PM EST
I wonder the percentage of University Students who actually come from Michigan? Because between Prop 2 and this Gay marriage ban, either Michigan is a state of yahoos or the University is a bunch of snot nose kids pissing on Democracy and wiping their butts with the constitution. (Continued…)
Elaine
posted 7/11/07 @ 1:10 AM EST
To Emmarie:
Your statement is "It seems to me that if this really were an issue about making sure that marriage means "man-woman-children," we would enforce quotas about how many children a married couple must have -- and we wouldn't prevent committed homosexual couples from adopting and raising children. (Continued…)
Jared Goldberg
posted 7/11/07 @ 1:23 AM EST
Democracy Sucks:
Interesting "name." What should we have instead?
"I wonder the percentage of University Students who actually come from Michigan?"
2/3 in-state, 1/3 out-of-state. (Continued…)
Joyce Meyers
posted 7/13/07 @ 1:19 PM EST
Anyone can get married so long as they find a suitable partner of the opposite sex who consents. There is no law stating that LGBT persons can't marry - that would be discrimination. (Continued…)
Joyce Meyers
posted 7/13/07 @ 1:22 PM EST
Anyone can get married so long as they find a suitable partner of the opposite sex who consents. There is no law stating that LGBT persons can't marry - that would be discrimination. (Continued…)
Patricia A. Gozemba
posted 7/09/07 @ 8:41 AM EST
Yes, "Michigan voters must abolish the nonsensical gay marriage ban." What conservatives like Atty. Gen. Mike Cox do not want to recognize is that gay marriage can become a non-issue. (Continued…)