Posted on 10/10/2004 3:02:33 PM PDT by schaketo
Gay marriage is not on the horizon in Michigan and there is no need for voters to amend the state constitution in a way that would unfairly harm some citizens.
In drafting Proposal 2 to ban same-sex marriage, the Citizens for the Defense of Marriage went well beyond what was necessary to achieve that goal. For example, if the proposal is adopted Nov. 2, it could end health and other benefits extended by some public employers to gay couples, and perhaps encourage private companies to do likewise.
Additionally, language in the proposed amendment threatens those same domestic partner benefits for unmarried heterosexual couples.
Federal and state law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Further, the federal Defense of Marriage Act allows Michigan to not recognize a same-sex marriage in another state, such as Massachusetts, according to an analysis of Proposal 2 by the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, which is respected for its nonpartisanship.
Of course, the Michigan Supreme Court could strike down the state's prohibition of gay marriages, currently unlikely. But by the same token a federal judge could invalidate the law in Proposal 2 even if overwhelmingly approved.
The immediate effect if the amendment passes - and polls show that likely - would be to inject discriminatory policy into the state constitution targeting unmarried couples, both gay and straight.
Proposal 2 says "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." The words "in marriage" and "or similar union for any purpose" suggest an ambitious agenda to deny rights to non-traditional household partners.
That should not be the role of government or the law. Partnerships are a matter of personal choice - no matter how much we may disapprove of some of these arrangements. And the state's constitution should not be used to preclude employer health benefits or certain legal protections for unmarried domestic partners, same-sex or otherwise.
Proposal 2 targets a non-existent "problem" with a broadly harmful "remedy." Voters should defeat it.
Right. What are the odds?
Flint, MI. Say, isn’t that where butt boy Mikey Moore is from.
Blame the legal networks and the activist courts. It's their fault that this is necessary. If they lose ground because of it then they only have themselves to blame.
NOOOOOO
He is safely from the Burbs of Flint... actually LIVING with the poor, well thats not Mikey's style
It will pass by better than 70% - even in Wayne County!
This is a suppress the Bush vote editorial. Tries to take an issue away from W.
Good! Who wants their tax dollars to pay for the negative medical consequences of homosexual activity [playing in the sewer]? or have their insurance premiums raised to compensate?
Don't you believe it. These days, liberal activist judges are everywhere.
The nice thing about this is, if it's dumped by a judge, any judge, anywhere, it will serve to inflame the populace against judicial "activists" (judges who wish to rule the country by their own decree) and flush the enemy out into the open.
What about hermaphrodites? Are we going to get to the point where people who want to get married must have their gender certified by a Dr?? Up to this point, Michigan has recognized marriages from other states, including common law marriages. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think this is it.
And, WHY should people who live together and love each other NOT receive the insurance and other benefits allowed to married couples?? If its still only two people, what difference does it make?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.