Proposal 2 passed. Thanks fellow Michigan citizens. Now not only will it probably take 50 years before gay marriage or unions will be legalized but now all the partner benefits that exist will be lost too. Granted, we only lost by 12% or so... not TOO bad. *gives that 12% the finger*
Hopefully the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional...
I've said before that I don't care if the state recognizes me or not, I'm going to live my life how I'm supposed to...but this feels like a real slap in the face. Being told to shut up and go die. I don't think people realized what it means to amend the constitution and the implications. And they didn't even have all the wording of the amendment on the ballot. Whatever.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm also really hurt that all those bans seem to be passing. That folks can look at you and me and say, "Nope. You don't deserve that kind of recognition."
posted
Telp, take heart. There's still doubt that this amendment will be interpreted to prevent partner benefits from being given. Quite a lot of doubt, actually.
If it does get interpreted that way, there's a decent chance SCOTUS will strike that portion down. The irony is that the best legal basis for doing so was overruled by FDR's court in the 30s.
But there's still lots of other reasons a state amendment banning partner benefits might be struck down.
posted
I'm sorry, Telperion I can only imagine (fortunately, for my own sake, I don't know) what it feels like to be so slighted by my government, but obviously it does not feel good.
I wish there was a candidate with a hope in hell of winning who supported treating homosexuals like equal human beings in a democracy, so I could vote for them for anything, but it seems unlikely for awhile Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figure that by striking out the word "marriage" as a legal definition, it actually leaves a much bigger opening for "civil unions" to be recognized. And through that the benefits and rights will be obtained.
And when one puts the semantics aside, it is the rights, obligations and benefits that are really the most important.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though it seems clear that federal benefits for marriage won't be conferred any time soon. And certainly it makes it clear that your average neighbor isn't going to smile at you when you come back with "Just Civilly Unionized" on your car window.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Rev. Mark Bidwell is the gay minister for Ferndale's Metropolitan Community Church of Detroit and a member of a coalition of churches and organizations hoping to defeat Proposal 2 on the Nov. 2 ballot. Proposal 2 is a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman as the only agreement recognized as a marriage, in effect banning same-sex marriage.
The organizations confronting each other on the proposal are the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, which argues an amendment is necessary so that the courts or future legislatures can't overturn state law banning same-sex marriage, and the Coalition for a Fair Michigan, which represents mostly non-Catholic churches and is against the amendment.
Bidwell and opponents say the last six words of the ballot proposal - "or similar union for any purpose" - will affect opposite-sex domestic unions, as well, and businesses' abilities to attract workers.
"I think it'll be an economic mistake for the state," said Bidwell, ticking off automotive companies, municipalities and universities that offer benefits for unmarried couples he says will be at risk if the proposal passes.
"If they're not able to do that, are they going to be able to look at moving and doing business in Michigan?" Bidwell said. "I'm concerned about how this will affect the state as far as getting new companies moving to Michigan."
That's a concern that's likely to be resolved soon.
Despite a law banning same-sex marriage, a religious community split on the question and editorials by most newspapers opposing the amendment, recent polls say the proposal is likely to pass by a nearly two-thirds margin.
The ballot proposal is part of a national trend toward strengthening same-sex marriage bans by state constitutional amendment. Michigan is one of 11 states with proposed amendments.
The movement gained momentum after the Massachusetts Supreme Court in May struck down a state law there prohibiting same-sex marriage.
In Michigan, Ed Sarpolus of the Lansing polling firm EPIC-MRA, said support for the proposal is higher in the general public than among Catholics, whom he said are equally divided.
But Sarpolus said polls indicate support is not universal among Catholics.
It's not that dissenting Catholics support same-sex marriage, said Sarpolus, who also points to the last six words of the proposal.
"It goes well beyond the intent of those who originally supported it," said Sarpolus, who noted there's merit to the effect on businesses. "It's a property rights issue. What do you do if you hire someone, do bed checks?"
The Michigan Catholic Conference is distributing brochures supporting a constitutional amendment. They've been mailed to every Catholic in the state.
The seven dioceses that make up the Michigan Catholic Conference - the public policy arm of the church - have pumped $500,000 into literature.
"The polls I'm looking at show a strong majority of Catholic voters support Proposal 2," said Paul Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference.
"By a 3-1 margin, Catholics that attend Mass weekly support Proposal 2," Long said. "I don't think there's any validity to Mr. Sarpolus' statement."
Legal challenges are likely, if the proposal passes, said Jeff Horner, research assistant with the Citizens Research Council, a nonprofit analyst of the ballot proposal.
"It all comes down to how the last six words of the proposal are interpreted," Horner said. "Michigan has a statute that addresses how ballot language has to be clear. If this passes, opponents of that will cite that statute, saying the amendment tries to do too many things.
"From everyone I've been talking to, including employers who extend domestic partnership benefits, there is concern it could make same-sex benefits illegal, even in the private sector," Horner said. "Their concern is that they would lose quality employees if they have to take benefits away or can't extend them to new employees."
Business organizations, however, said that argument isn't a very vocal one among their membership.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce hasn't taken a position on Proposal 2, said chamber senior vice president Bob LaBrandt.
"I think we see this mainly as a social issue," LaBrandt said. "People have their right to oppose it or support it. I haven't had one business call and say it's going to affect collective-bargaining issues. I've never received a phone call saying 'we're concerned about this.' "
posted
Here is what it said on the ballot... this is far from all of what the amendment will do and a small part of the full wording.
Proposal 04-2:
The proposal would amend the state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
[ November 03, 2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I figure that by striking out the word "marriage" as a legal definition, it actually leaves a much bigger opening for "civil unions" to be recognized. And through that the benefits and rights will be obtained.
As you see, the amendment will ban civil unions too. This thing might end common law marriages too. (confused if common law marriage exists still in Michigan to be banned)
[ November 03, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Sopwith. The Michigan amendment says no to ANYTHING.
Homosexuals in Michigan are basically being told that their long-term relationships have no social value of any kind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad, comrade. Suggest you vote with your feet and move to Scandinavia, where the laws are enlightened.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My native state has gone mad. Guess there are just too many people in Michigan with firm "moral values."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Telp's neighbor state of Ohio where I live, the amendment is even more broad and more destrucive. There are those that say "well, you can bypass the laws by making things look and act like marriage" by doing things like powers of attorney, domestic partner benefits, etc. Well, our state not only bans gay marriage in word but also anything that remotely LOOKS like marriage. This has the effect of non-married male/female couples as well. The fact that I think every state put this on the ballot and won is a horrible thing. Reglardess of the SCOTUS comes down like an avenging angel and slicing and dicing state amendments it doesn't change the fact that 60% of my state are looking at me and my friend's as someone beneath basic human recognition.
posted
I don't think the court will overturn this. I wish they would. But if they didn't overturn McCain-Feingold (I'm disgusted that both of those people got re-elected) which blatently violated the first amendment, they won't overturn this, which blatently violates the rights of gay people.
I fear that we made our move toward gay marriage too soon and the knee jerk homophobia has doomed another 2 or 3 generations to live their lives as second class citizens.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's worth noting, too, that Dag has a higher opinion of the Supreme Court than I do.
I also have a very low opinion of the how the average person's understanding of the realities of the Court (not that you're average, Tom).
For example, everyone thinks Scalia is anti-civil liberty. But in many instances, he's more hardline for protecting civil liberties than anyone on the court. His dissent in Hamdi (with Stevens) challenged the right to hold Hamdi at all without charging him and providing the full extent of constitutional criminal protections. The majority decision simply allowed him access to some kind of hearing. He signed on to Thomas's concurrence in Hubble that would have vastly broadened the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination in subpoena contexts. He was the moving force behind Blakely and it's predecessors insisting that (very nearly) all facts that relate to length of punishment be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. His views on right to confront the accuser are at least as civil libertarian as the "liberal" wing of the Court. He authored the opinion applying 4th amendment protections to inspection of houses via heat-sensing technology. When Scalia recognizes a judicially enforceable constitutional right, he protects it far more rigidly than most.
It's certainly possible to look at Scalia's record and decide he's done more damage to civil liberties than he has good. It's likely Scalia won't be an ally when this amendment gets challenged, although there is a possibility he'll strike down the anti-contract portions. But too many people blithely write him off as "anti-civil-liberties" without understanding the incredible complexities involved.
The same type of reasoning applies to every single justice.
I'm not saying the Court WILL decide a certain way. I think it's likely they will, and if I were a betting man I'd say 6-3 or 7-2.
posted
Well, although I do feel compassion for you on this issue, the "Marriage" proposals in all 11 states in which it was on the ballot, all passed.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that so many people are willing to vote to treat people this way makes me angry and depressed. You would think that we would be more enlightened as a people...
I'm still confused at where the 'compassionate' part of 'compassionate conservative' is displayed. Is it only in word and never in deed?
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And, Chad, you are the only person posting on this thread who thinks that's a good thing.
Tom, you don't know that, necessarily. Chad is the only one being enough of a jerk to point it out, certainly.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, this isn't a thread about debating the relative worth of civil homosexual marriage. It's about comforting a friend who feels like a majority of the people in his state don't want him around.
posted
I'm so sorry, Telp. Today I just want to crawl back in bed and cry for a while...I'm ashamed to be an American.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telp was concerned (among other things) that this Michigan amendment means that all partner benefits for homosexual couples would be lost.
I am *sooo* not a lawyer, but I don't see how it does that. I can see how it makes it so that companies are not forced to extend partner benefits to homosexual couples, but does it prohibit them from doing so?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yep. We have to deal with a lot of bigots here in Michigan.
Sorry things didn't turn out better. I was suprised I actually knew almost every position or proposal on the ballot this year. Patting myself on the back for not having to choose based on, say, who's name would be easiest to write a character, or who's what party.
I'm happy prop. 1 passed, even though it may hurt education's income from lottery. Sad prop 2 passed, and that your life is being made more difficult.
Posts: 271 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Telp was concerned (among other things) that this Michigan amendment means that all partner benefits for homosexual couples would be lost.
I am *sooo* not a lawyer, but I don't see how it does that. I can see how it makes it so that companies are not forced to extend partner benefits to homosexual couples, but does it prohibit them from doing so?
Because the wording, while not as specific as other States in banning anything that resembles gay marriage and benefits, is vague enough for them to ban all that here too. I'll try and find the full wording and post it here.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are they so liberal of a country that anything goes?
In comparison to the US, yes.
quote: Are they stronger because of it?
Well... I dunno about "stronger," but...
quote:I never seem to hear anything negative about Sweden. Why?
Because it is one of the best places in the world to live, behind Norway. Standard of living, education level, literacy rate, overall public health, et cetera... all near or at the top, of everywhere in the entire world.
It is, quite literally, the second best place to live in the world, so long as you don't mind learning the language.
(This is according to the United Nations' Human Development Index, which is published annually and ranks the quality of life in countries around the world according to the metrics I mentioned.)
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telp, No matter what else came out of this election, this crap is a big blot of shame for our country. The majority may be for it, but there's a pretty significant minority that thinks that they are dead wrong. Cold comfort no doubt, but if you find the guy of your dreams and commit to settle down, I'll consider you married and have no problems saying so. I'm going to work against this, hopefully by thinning out the ranks of the bigots.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
. We love you! ::glomp::
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
