Mich. Governor Pulls Same-Sex Benefits From State Worker Contracts

[seriousstan]

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Gov. Jennifer Granholm will remove same-sex partner benefits from contracts negotiated with state workers, said an aide, citing a voter-approved amendment to the Michigan Constitution that bans gay marriage "and similar unions."
Michigan voters approved the amendment Nov. 2.

On Wednesday, Granholm aide David Fink said that negotiated contracts scheduled for adoption by the state Civil Service Commission on Dec. 15 will be stripped of the same-sex domestic partner benefits.

Fink said the Granholm administration decided to eliminate the benefits because of the passage of Proposal 2, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and bans same-sex marriage and "similar unions for any purpose."

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBCGA2G82E.html

[NYC]

1. Can he do that?

The benefits are in a negotiated contract.

I guess because the contract is "scheduled for adoption" he can get away with it? I hope the state workers object.

[Tweed]

5. If you are referring to the governor, the governor is a she

[NYC]

14. Yes, I was.

So now my question is can she do that?

[NJGeek]

50. She kinda hot

in a marie landrieu sort of way

[Angelique]

90. I am afraid that this isn't the end of the backlash against GAY MARRIAGE.

I have been afraid that the Gay Marriage push was way before it's time and moved much too fast for many of the millions of churchgoing people to accept and absorb so soon after the Hate Crime legislation that was thankfully accepted throughout the nation.

A bit more Patience would have been the wisest move to go after the civil unions which were widely accepted as it appeared it was heading, now it appears both may have been severely damaged, if not terminally.

I am also sure that the over-reaching by my Gay brethren may have caused the country another election, and I don't care what anyone says this is just my opinion, I have a right to be pissed, I have to live with the god damned results of another Bush 4 years. Don't think I don't know what I will get for having had the audacity to think outside of the box.. Fire away!

[Gopens]

91. Overreaching by gay brethren?

With all due respect, Angelique, it wasn't gays and lesbians who made gay marriage a hot-button issue, it was the GOP. They sensed an issue that would break their way, and they forced the issue. Gays didn't cost us an election, bigotry did. And I'll lose election after election before I cave in to bigotry. Sorry, but I'd like to live in a free country.

[Puglover]

96. Gopens

Hear hear on a very fine point. It was KKKarl and the GOP who made it into a hot issue and scared the knuckle draggers with the imminent dustruction of their marriages.

[Angelique]

108. And I'll lose election after election before I cave in to bigotry. Sorry,

Sorry, I really understand your frustration, and well placed principles, but we can't win anything fighting from the outside.. We have proved over and over, that we can only win from the hard won seats at the table of power, from the inside. That means we MUST win elections, and assume the positions of control.

What is the problem of fighting a war by the winning methods, why are you dragging the rest of us down to prove you are a happy masochist?

I want my gay friends to win their long overdue rights with the consent of the people and that will happen. This was clearly a winnable goal, one giant step at a time, civil unions were well within our reach. You know we were getting close before we stupidly overreached.

[Puglover]

113. Angelique.....uh...who "stupidly overeached"

Do you have a schedule in mind for us???

[Angelique]

118. Do you have a schedule.. No dear I don't..

I wish I could make it happen TODAY. After rereading my own posts I am so sorry that it sounds like I am blaming the victims for the crime.

My heart is just breaking watching my many friends so disappointed again. I have just been burning off my own frustrations, and seeing how trying to solve this injustice appears to have backfired and set the cause back even further.

[Cheswick2.0]

126. that would make sense if WE HAD BEEN TRYING TO SOLVE ANYTHING

But no one was asking for anything. The GOP brought it up. Don't you get that?
What could we have done?

[Cheswick2.0]

125. you ignored the posters most important point

It wasn't gay people that made this an issue.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indiana_Dem]

2. Oh boy. That's bad.

It's bad to have had something and then have it taken away. That's going to really hurt. I expect some outrage about this one.

[Newsjock]

3. Now someone tell me once again ...

... why I, a gay man, should remain in this country where I am treated like shit, not only by Republicans, but by a significant portion of the Democratic Party as well.

[aikido15]

7. I don't know but...

I am very tired of the homophobic attitudes. It is just so wrong to feel that way about ANY human being. The so-called Christians make me sick. Try living in MO, ugh, it is bad here.

Hang in there...it just has to get better!

[Timebound]

8. I feel ya.

...I'm bisexual, so I get plenty of the hate...



"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
-Jesus

[Sandpiper]

10. I don't think anyone would blame you

If you were to seriously consider moving to Canada.

Gay people have become the new "n*ggers" in this country.

[ninkasi]

19. I feel so bad for you...

and thousands of other gays and lesbians who are treated with contempt. The same government that passes spiteful, hurtful legislation, denying you equal rights doesn't exempt you from paying taxes, though, does it?

I'm afraid that the next 4 years will see an increase in hatred, violence, and brutality. With the neocons power drunk as they are, nothing they try to do surprises me. It pains me, but doesn't surprise me. I know you must feel depressed about being treated as less than human, just for being who you were born to be. I wish things would change, I don't know my own country any more.

[theHandpuppet]

22. You said it!

I've worked my butt off for Dems for thirty years but I'm fed up. Either the Dem Party takes a stand for us now or I'm looking for a party that will.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. She is simply following the law

If you do not like the law, then you need to work to change it.

[readmoreoften]

43. Yeah, like that's not what we've all been doing!

Working to change the law!
Get with it, Rerun!

[sonicx]

77. like we havent already...

[Hippo_Tron]

121. Her actions are illegal as far as I'm concerned...

Ban gay marriage, sure, that's another issue entirely. Denying people their CIVIL RIGHTS! That is illegal.

[Cheswick2.0]

127. bull...........she's cutting benefits costs

and she is conveniently using the new hate legislation as an excuse.

[Guaranteed]

133. The "law" is illegal by the 14th amendment of the United

States Constitution.

The Constitution is there to protect the minority from the majority- just because people vote in some piece of crap out of their own intolerance doesn't make it right. That law needs to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

[okieinpain]

52. she has no choice. they will use this against her. better question

is why do gays vote repug.

"Republican legislators have been pressing the Democratic governor to strip the same-sex benefits from the contracts, which cover about 30,000 employees, or most of the state's union work force."

[maddogesq]

88. Yep. She opposed Prop 2 BIG TIME, but has to follow the law.

Don't worry, because somewhere a federal court is gonna throw this out on its ear.

They continue to try and pin this crap on her, and that makes me angry. All she needs to do is come out and nicely say "Voter, I warned you, but you didn't listen."

[Pretzels]

68. Disgusted, too

I understand your frustration, Newsjock. As a lesbian, I am disgusted with this ruling also. I live in a very liberal part of the country (Maine) and am fortunate enough to work for a company that is wonderfully diversity-conscious and offers a rich benefit package for same-sex partners. These types of rulings are infuriating! They set equal rights back 30 years!! I can't believe the level of hate and intolerance that has accompanied this administration with rulings such as this. Repulsive!

[Iceburg]

89. Sweetie, come to Canada ... we believe in EQUALITY for ALL

You can stay and fight or live and be free.

I am thankful everyday that my grandparents (Romanian Jews) made the wise decision to leave their motherland in 1913.

Parliament Hill Ottawa November 30, 2004

The Bush Unwelcoming Committee

[Hieronymus]

131. Thanks, for you're welcome.............

a reporter, from Canada, who was on C-SPAN, suggested that most Canadians are not fond of Americans.

[Romberry]

107. Governor Granholm is not happy about this.

You don't seriously believe that Governor Jennifer Granholm is doing this because she wants to do you? The voters passed a stupid law which she opposed. She doesn't have much choice. Democrats, unlike Republicans, follow the law.

[GiovanniC]

112. Exactly... Thank You

It's so frustrating to see Democrats self-destructing and eating their own over this. Granholm is a good governor. She is a good Democrat. It is not her fault that this state voted to hate gays.

If you want to be pissed off, start by being pissed off at Grand Rapids. Then, move on to being pissed off at all the religious conservative fundies in this state. Then, for the final coup de grace, get REAL FUCKING PISSED at the manipulative slime that put this bigoted, hateful bullshit on the ballot in the first fucking place. Granholm's hands got tied here. And since Michigan is a blue state that saw this bullshit amendment pass by like a 20% margin, here's a newsflash: DEMOCRATS TIED HER FUCKING HANDS ON THIS.

At least 10% of the people who voted for John Kerry voted for this filth of a constitutional amendment too.

[Cheswick2.0]

128. she does have a choice...........that's nonsense

She could have refused to do this until she was forced. It looks pretty voluntary to me.

[JI7]

4. would it have passed if the ban only applied to civil unions ?

i'm wondering if it would have passed if the amendment was about banning civil unions only.

how many voted for it because they opposed gay marriage although supported civil unions ?

michigan leans democratic although still a swing state. it's sad this passed.

[Ima]

11. I doubt it.

We are dealing with people that don't want to share 'marriage'. It's their God given sacred thing.

I'm not terribly fond of civil union either.


I've often wonder why gays didn't come up with another word, maybe something pretty and French or African to describe their commitment.


Example... Gays want to legalize *******.

Redneck and Fundie....Who cares what 'those people' do?


I do think a new word is in order.

[Newsjock]

12. Well, not quite

Example... Gays want to legalize *******.

We don't want to "legalize" anything; we want equal access to something that's already legal. And without that equal access to government benefits and obligations, I find myself unable to rationalize paying the same level of taxation as heterosexuals, and I find myself increasingly unwilling to defend "my country," since "my country" sure as hell isn't defending me.

I don't give a rat's patootie whether Church A or Church B will or won't bless my marriage. I care that, in the eyes of the law -- for both obligations to the state and expectations from it -- that my relationship would be recognized identically to that of an opposite-sex couple. No more, no less. Not 90%, not "everything except..." Full equality. Full acknowledgment of my equality as a human being and as an American.

And, depending on the way the question is worded, anywhere from 40% to 70% of Americans disagree with that. So I feel entirely justified in saying a big giant up-yours to "my country."

[Ima]

15. I know where you are coming from.

I don't think the 'words' count for much. It is what they represent.

If you could legally have EVERY right and privilege of marriage, but have to call it something else, would that really be to high a price to pay?

I understand that you are frustrated, and rightfully so, sometimes I just 'bang my head against the wall' trying to find a way that it will work. So people will just let gays be who they are.


I'll not go into detail, my family has had a tragic, heart wrenching gay ordeal.

[theHandpuppet]

21. Read the article, Ima

This isn't about just gay MARRIAGE, it's about gay unions of any sort, including domestic partnerships. "Fink said the Granholm administration decided to eliminate the benefits because of the passage of Proposal 2, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and bans same-sex marriage and "similar unions for any purpose."

Governor Granholm could not have removed language citing only those references to gay marriage because GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT RECOGNIZED IN MICHIGAN!! Your argument is moot -- this is not about semantics, this is about outright discrimination against gays.

And no, I sure as hell am not going to make up some "pretty" or obscure name for marriage so my partner and I can call our fifteen-year marriage anything other than what it is. We are now just waiting for domestic partner benefits to be stripped from us, as this seems to be a national trend.

Either Dems are with us or against us. I have no more patience and I will not graciously take my seat in the back of the bus any longer.

[KitSileya]

134. Amen!

Well said, and I completely agree. It is time for the Democratic Party to take a stand on this, and they can be assured that if they oppose gay marriage, they will lose a great deal of support, but if they support it, they won't lose anyone. Those who oppose gay marriage have already gone over to the GOP.

[jbnow]

18. I don't think most voters even knew

that it went beyond gay marriages. I didn't know until I saw the ballot, which didn't describe what else that would effect. I knew how I would vote so I didn't study the proposal earler.

Michigan Marriage Amendment

“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, 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.”

When I looked into it I saw it would prohibit benefits or insurance for the same sex partner. Michigan already had a law barring gay marriage.

Too bad there wasn't a lot of money for advertising and getting the facts out.

I'm always ashamed of these stupid laws.

[Kingshakabobo]

79. The wording is so vague it's scary.

A "union" can mean several things. What about checking accounts, mortgages and insurance, to name a few.

[theHandpuppet]

20. Did you READ the article?

And I quote: "Fink said the Granholm administration decided to eliminate the benefits because of the passage of Proposal 2, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and bans same-sex marriage and "similar unions for any purpose."

This is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of hate and discrimination. No one should be proud, including no Democrat, for supporting SOME rights for people, or half rights, or anything other than FULL legal rights that should be afforded to gay people in this country. Now we can't even have domestic partner benefits in a state that doesn't even recognize gay marriage OR civil unions. What's next?

[aikido15]

6. This is sickening

When will it end? Even Africa has protection for gays written into their constitution. This country is turning into a theocracy!

[Erika]

9. Bush's Theocracy Is Just Beginning

You're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Bush is talking Old Testament and Falwell and Robertson. That's who "brung" him to the dance.

[FDRrocks]

13. BIGOTS!

Not Nazis. That doesn't apply yet. BIGOTS ARE TAKING OVER THIS FUCKING COUNTRY. I'd deck these assholes in the jaw if I ever met them.

God fucking damnit I am really reaching the end of my rope.

[Divine Discontent]

16. sick

I believe in a just God, and they are in for a rude awakening....

it's late/early, so if that doesn't make since, what I'm saying, what SHIT they put on anyone else, without reconciliation at some point, will be put back on them come judgement day.


God bless the downtrodden and judged.

[okieinpain]

53. hey it's not just the bigots, gays are voting repug also. it appears

that money is more important then freedom.

[SnowBack]

61. How DO they figure out who is Gay at the polls?

I'd like to see proof that 23% of Gay people actually voted Repub... Other than some media "pundit"...

Not to say there aren't self-loathing Gay people out there - just ask Representative David Drier in California or Ken Mehlman, or Mary Cheney...

[Hippo_Tron]

122. If Rick Santorum, Jim DeMint, and Tom Coburn aren't evidence...

Of what you just said, then I don't know what is. These people actively campaign on a homphobic platform and get elected to the US Senate.

[KitSileya]

135. The sad thing is, you probably have.

Met them, that is. They're your colleague, your children's teacher, the nurse at the local hospital, the auto mechanic that repairs your car, the clerk at your local bookstore, your neighbor, your cousin, and your priest.

[vanboggie]

17. Blame Rove

This was a Rovian dirty trick to get the fundamentalist wingers (esp. on the West side of the state) to the polls. This is not something Jennifer Granholm would do on her own. Since Gov. Granholm is Canadian, however, I wish she would figure out a way to get us annexed to her native country instead.

[bushisanidiot]

23. She's adding her own interpretation to the amendment. The voters weren't

given the option of choosing whether to strip state employed same-sex partners of their benefits.. had they known that would happen they more than likely would not have agreed to the amendment passing.

[theHandpuppet]

24. Then the people of Michigan have poor reading comprehension skills

What the hell did they think this meant? Proposal 2, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and bans same-sex marriage and "similar unions for any purpose."

[bushisanidiot]

39. Sorry, but I don't think the voters realized state employed gays who were

already enjoying same-sex partner benefits would be losing those benefits.

most americans, regardless of whether or not they agree with gay marriage or civil unions, agree that gays should still enjoy the same legal benefits as hets such as health care for partners and the right to visit a partner in the hospital as next of kin, etc..

[okieinpain]

55. well now they know, I believe that dems need to stop protecting

the people from themselves. we need to allow the repugs to have their way. abortion, affirmative action, gay rights. we should allow the repugs to do away with all of that. then lets see what the people think about the difference's between repugs, and dems.

I think she is making the right move.

[fujiyama]

93. Most Americans don't care

Their support for civil unions is much softer than their "disgust" with gay marriage.

Sure they'll say, they agree that gays should have equal rights, but if you put something like marriage or adoption in the same sentence, they'll flip and say those are "special rights".

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[matcom]

26. Jennifer Granholm??????????

:wow:

i am SHOCKED!

heard her speak at the Emily's List gathering in Boston. fell in LOVE with her.

now THIS?

:cry:

[Scout]

28. I don't think she's doing it because she really wants to...

Fink said the Granholm administration decided to eliminate the benefits because of the passage of Proposal 2, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and bans same-sex marriage and "similar unions for any purpose."

"We're about following the law and honoring the intent of the voters," Fink said.

He said the benefits could be restored before the contracts take effect on Oct. 1, 2005, if the courts have resolved the issue by then.
---------------------------

The voters passed the amendment (I voted no), I don't think Governor Granholm has much choice but to follow state law.

[Hippo_Tron]

123. What she is doing is ILLEGAL according to the US Constitution...

14th ammendment to the constitution...

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

She is denying a group of people their privilages as citizens of the United States!

And no, telling gay people that they have the same rights as everybody else, do enter heterosexual unions is not a valid argument. It's the equivalent of telling wheelchair bound people that they can walk up stairs like everybody else.

[BiggJawn]

27. This is Jennifer "Oh, GAWD, she's SO Hot!" Granholm?

How do you like her now? Looks like she leans towards the DLC, doesn't it?

"Uh, Jenny? You'd better DO something to suck-up to the Bush supporters, or your re-election is TOAST!"

[GiovanniC]

101. Once More, This is Not Jennifer Granholm's Fault

The fucking ignorant dumbfuck voters in this state approved Proposal 2 (by a huge margin) despite efforts by myself and others. Now she is forced to follow the "will of the voters" even though she fought Proposal 2 tooth and nail. And you're rapping her for it?

[Mari333]

29. I live in Michigan. I am disgusted. this is outrageous...

whats next, camps?

[QC]

33. Suddenly Michigan sounds like one of those "red states"

you were posting about the other day.

[noonwitch]

35. A good part of Michigan is a red state

Detroit and many suburbs are blue, and the third-largest county is a swing county. Lansing also tends to vote democratic. Oakland County, the second largest county and one of the wealthiest counties in the nation, voted blue this time.

West and Northern Michigan are mostly red-state areas. West Michigan is religiously conservative. Combine that with Detroit christian african-americans that voted both for Kerry and for the gay marriage/civil union ban, and on that issue, we look like a red state.

[Occulus]

40. You got that right on the money...

I live in W. Michigan. Just what, last year (or two ago- been a while)Kalamazoo had a ballot proposal that would have allowed landlords to evict gay couples at will, require the city to rescind all health benefits, and basically legalize open GLBT discrimination within city limits. It got defeated, but that Hoogendyk asshole was all for it and then some.

[Mari333]

46. Another reason I moved to Kalamazoo

was that the small southwest town I had been in was RED. Southwest Michigan, except for some parts of it, like Kalamazoo, are notoriously right wing..the difference is what information is out there ..in small towns in west michigan theres no information..Kalamazoo has tons of colleges and has Democracy Now! on TV....
Its 30 light years ahead of the small towns surrounding it.

[SnowGoose]

71. Come join us in Ann Arbor !

Grew up in Kalamazoo. Graduated from WMU. Can't seem to miss too much about Kalamazoo, except maybe Flipside records (gone anyway) and Rose Street Market (oh and that mummy in the museum).

Why didn't I leave sooner?

[noonwitch]

117. I went to WMU, too-BSW 1986

I loved Flipside records, and the whole downtown area in general. When I was there, Jacobsens and Gilmores were still downtown, as was John Rollins bookstore, which I know is now in Portage. I did my field placement at the county building down by the train station, and would wander around downtown on my lunch break.

There are some great restaurants I remember, too, many of which are probably gone. I always like T.E. Murch's deli, Bilbos (I know that's still there), Galley Subs, Sunshine Subs on Westnedge (I know that's gone), Maggie's, etc.

[Rockholm]

30. My take is she didd this to shop how BAD this is...

Hey, the folks in Michigan voted for it. Let them see just how horrible it really is!

Maybe gays in Michigan and those who REALLY hate this amendment can make their anger felt....BY LEAVING! Massachusetts is a touch warmer and much, much more welcoming!

[AlienGirl]

32. That's my take too

I don't think Granholm is actually anti-gay; I think she is trying to deliver a very harsh wake-up call, and maybe create some legal actions against the amendment.

Granholm is one of the good guys, IMO. She rescued michigan from the fangs of the Engler administration.

Tucker

[oneold1-4u]

49. Yup, turn dirty shirt wrong side out

and someone will take notice quickly. Just dirty politics never give an honest picture, but turn it backwards and someone will wonder how they were ever taken in. This may be the person who helps gays in all 11 states and others to show how ugly and bigotted the design of these laws are. They will learn that there is a true moral majority that can understand bigotry and hate and not wish to walk in those shoes.

[JusticeForAll]

56. I want to believe this too

But damn what I want to believe has no impact on reality. Her decision has just cut off existing benefits on people who were dependent on them for basic survival.

If she was trying to send a wake-up call this was pretty fucking stupid.

Sure let's allow all of the people who are dependent on their partner's health plan for their necessary viral medication and doctor's care be set free.

We'll let people DIE so we can protect the will and intent of the voters.

Anyone who supports her action and "interpretation" is fucking nuts.

[GiovanniC]

102. HER Decision Did No Such Fucking Thing

The decision of 80% of the goddamn electorate in this state did that. She is simply following the constitution of this state, which she has sworn to uphold.

The problem here is NOT Jennifer Granholm.

[theHandpuppet]

60. A wake-up call to whom?

Only gays will be hurt by this legislation. The majority of other voters either support it or if it doesn't affect them, don't care enough to do anything about it. That's one helluva wake-up call to gay folks who may have a partner who suffers from a chronic or debilitating or terminal illness, huh?

[Newsjock]

65. I, for one, ...

... refuse to be collateral damage in any "wake-up call," no matter how "pragmatic."

My life, my rights, my existence are not open to negotiation. Period, end of story. And if the Democratic Party doesn't get off its (no pun intended) limp-wristed butt pretty damn pronto and -- heaven forbid -- actually take a principled stand on something, I'm done with 'em. Forever.

I have been mad, fuming, steaming angry ever since this story broke last night, almost to the point of not being able to work today. And it's not going away.

[regnaD kciN]

82. Wishful thinking, IMHO...

She may have felt compelled to do this, but the notion that this will serve as a "very harsh wake-up call" is absurd. Does she think that the vast majority of those who supported this amendment are going to care all that much that a handful of "faggots" lose their benefits? Odds are, they'll be cheering this development. And, even if a substantial percentage of those who voted for this did so without understanding that it would have these sort of effects, do you really think that they would be enough to overturn it in a future vote. Not bloody likely.

And, as to the pipe-dream of "legal action against this amendment," remember that this is an amendment to the state constitution -- legal action can't be taken against the constitution, only against laws that contradict the constitution.

If I were Granholm, I would have refused to implement this and dared them to impeach me.

[GiovanniC]

103. There Are Plenty of Legal Challenges to This

And a Federal Court can overrule a State Constitutional Amendment if that state constitutional amendment violates the US Constitution (which this one does).

[JusticeForAll]

137. Yes, and in the meantime people will DIE

no fucking text.

[Strawman]

59. I doubt it . My take is she did it to cover her own ass

She's up for re-election in a couple years and she probably figured that these benefits were going to be taken away anyway because the language of the proposal that passed was broad enough to bar civil unions. She decided not to hand the Republicans a club to beat her with in the election. She decided that fighting for the rights of gays was a losing cause and was not worth the political cost to her. If she really was trying to make a case against the ban, she would fight it. She made no effort to speak out against the measure in the either. I don't know if she was for it or against it. Anyone here who thinks this is some strategic move by her to kill the ban is either spinning or kidding themselves.

Over the next couple years, I don't expect her to be scolding the people of MI about how mean they were to gays by passing proposal 2 and how they made a bad decision. Nope. I expect her to say exactly what her aide said in the article "we respect the wishes of the voters on this issue."

I understand the case for pragmatism. I understand that nobody, including gays, are better off if Spence Abraham or some Republican becomes governor in two years, but this kind of proactive effort to placate bigots is really disappointing to me as a MI Democrat. She's in a position of power and she's taking health insurance away from people. Someone's partner who was previously covered under their state employees' health insurance is gonna get sick and be left with choosing between losing all their assets to qualify for Medicaid or forgoing treatment. She might not have been able to stop that, but she could have delayed that and that time she could have bought might mean life or death for somebody. In my opinion, she made a highly immoral choice. She'll never get a dime from me or a minute of my time as a volunteer now.

[GiovanniC]

104. She Opposed Proposal 2

"Although Granholm opposes gay marriage -- but supports civil unions -- she opposed Proposal 2, a constitutional ban on gay marriage, calling it unnecessary and divisive. Proposal 2 was approved by Michigan voters Tuesday by a wide margin."

http://www.freep.com/news/politics/future5e_20041105.htm

[Strawman]

110. yeah she really fought hard against it too

like she did for racinos

[GiovanniC]

111. She Had the Same Position as Kerry and Most of the Rest

And that is, "I support civil unions, I oppose this amendment, but I'm not going to walk into this right-wing trap and self-destruct over an issue that the ignorant bigots OWN right now."

[Strawman]

114. She expended no political capital for it

But it's meaningless when you expend no political capital and take no risk to promote that position. Bush is for the intelligence bill too, and the assault weapons ban. 41% of people voted against Prop. 2 in MI and I'll bet a good chunk of those who voted for it didn't know it banned civil unions. The governor has a platform to speak about such things. She didn't use it because she was afraid of the cost.

That's one thing and maybe I can forgive that because it is not that unique that a politician might not want to take that risk, but then she PROACTIVELY JUMPED to repeal benefits for same sex partners before being forced to. That's nothing more than a politician pandering and covering her ass against a perceived tide of public opinion. Even if that's brilliant strategy, which I think it is not, (but that's another argument, look here for a good case for it http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=8870) it's poor moral leadership. Now that there's a perception that the wind has changed or that the tide against gay marriage is greater that it was before 11/2, she was more willing to DO HARM to gays and lesbians and more willing to risk political capital among progressives by doing this than she was willing to risk political capital fighting against the proposal. As a progressive, how am I supposed to endorse that kind of leadership beyond saying that it's the lesser of two evils? If this is the kind of shit we do when we actually have power, that's not at all inspiring. But she's a "winner" and a "rising star" so she can fuck over whomever she wants and I guess were just supposed to cheer. Bullshit.

[GiovanniC]

115. Unlike You, I Don't Have a Window into Granholm's Soul

However, nobody has gotten fucked over yet, and this will likely jump-start court cases that will get this amendment overthrown before this contract would even go into effect, while bringing the issue to the front. Why expend political capital, antagonize a large segment of the electorate and play into the Republicans' hands on a wedge issue when the result can and should be overthrown in court? She has expedited that process here.

Now, I have to play a game of "What Is Granholm Thinking?"

- She favors civil unions
- She opposed Proposal 2
- She put a policy into place that highlights the stupidity of the Amendment and will lead to a court ruling getting it striken

What is Granholm thinking? I can choose, like just about everyone in this thread, to assume that Granholm's inner Nazi is coming out. Or I can look at it logically and see Granholm winning, Democrats winning, gays and lesbians winning, and all without fucking herself over for 2006.

[Strawman]

116. I never said that

That's horseshit. I never called her a "Nazi," and I object to being lumped into that camp. I would absolutely concur in saying that it is ridiculous to label her a Nazi and I would add that it is also ridiculous to label almost anyone in American politics as a "Nazi." I think that label gets thrown around way too casually in political discourse these days and I think it trivializes how bad the actual Nazis were.

But back to the point. I don't doubt that she opposes the ban. I don't think she is secretly a conservative or anything like that. I do believe that she shares the same progressive values as I do based on things she has said and done. What I doubt is that in this case she has the courage of her convictions and I disapprove of her willingness to do harm to gays and lesbians for her own political benefit. She did harm to them with that decison. She's accountable for that. Rest assured I will vote for her over whomever the Republicans put out there, (cuz it won't be a Milliken). But she is not immune to criticism for her actions on this, even if the assholes who pushed for this are way worse. I voted for her to represent me. I never voted for any of them. She's not representing me. I have every right to be critical and feel angry and disappointed. This is a discussion of a news story about her actions. The people who are defending her actions are the ones being speculative about her motives and how by doing one thing, she's really trying to do the opposite. I hope she is and I hope it works, and I hope nobody gets hurt as a result of this move she has made, but from what I've seen I have no reason to believe that.

Apparently, you do. I hope you are proven right. And if this ends up expediting the courts striking down this ban and if she speaks out strongly in favor of civil unions and in opposition to this ban, I will happily write a check to her 2006 campaign. All we're hearing now from the governor's office is "We're about following the law and honoring the intent of the voters." Legitimizing their harmful, ill-informed, wrongheaded decision. That doesn't look encouraging to me.

[GiovanniC]

119. When the 2004 Results Came In

Almost everyone on DU was saying, "Fine, that's what they voted for, let's give it to them good and hard. They want social security bankrupt? No Medicare? More tax cuts for the rich while the poor suffer? Arrogant foreign policy that is getting Americans killed every day? Shitty environment, shitty economy, shitty employment, shitty education? Fine, fuck em all. Show them what they voted for so they can see."

Pretty extreme, and there's a lot of collateral damage there. But the idea was that if things got really bad, that things could then get better.

This is the same sort of idea, except not as extreme. And don't think for a minute that it is only be gay and lesbian couples who are in a position to get royally fucked over by this amendment. The exceedingly vague wording can wreak havoc on lots and lots of other people as well.

I am not saying that I know for a fact that Granholm is trying to get this amendment tossed by her actions here. I do know that by doing this to contracts that aren't completed yet, and doing this so early, she has provided a lot of time for people to get their legal challenges ready before the harm actually goes into effect.

[Strawman]

120. I guess we'll find out soon enough...

by the things she says and does whether she's among the group that thinks that Democrats need to abandon equal rights for gays and lesbians for the sake of political gain because they are "losing issues" or whether she thinks that the Democrats need to win by being more steadfast about their values, and that they will win not by doing more trimming on social issues, but by doing less trimming on the bread butter issues, as Robert Kuttner argues.

You've convinced me to withhold judgement until I see more from her, although I am still somewhat skeptical. The terse statement that accompanied this policy from her office is not enough for me to judge her intentions upon although it is not exactly encouraging. I suppose this could be a good tactical move if it leads to a legal resolution before the new contract goes into effect in 2005 and gives people affected some certainty about what kind of coverage they will or will not have then and gives them time to look for an alternative. If that is combined with some effort on her part to rollback the ban on civil unions as too extreme and to cement some reasonable legal protections for gay and lesbian partners, I will be very pleased. If not, my initial anger and disappointment will only be strengthened by the fact that I will be absolutely certain that it is warranted.

[gratuitous]

63. I suspect you are correct

I think she has taken an extreme initial position in order to give a little exposure to some very dirty politics.

This is just a proposal for the new public employee contract negotiations. It hasn't been officially offered yet, as far as I can tell from the story, and the union hasn't had a chance to make its counteroffer.

And, should the contract be ratified with the new "no partner benefits" provision, someone who lost those benefits could then bring suit in Michigan against the ballot measure that banned gay marriage on the grounds that they have been deprived of equal protection under the law (14th Amendment), and had their contractual rights impaired (Article 1 § 10).

The Michigan courts would then have to declare the ballot measure unconstitutional, or explain why a person's constitutional rights can be subject to a popular vote.

[Lady President]

87. My thought also

First thing I thought when I saw she was going to enforce this interpretation of the law was she was baiting the left to sue. I don't believe for a second she agrees with this. However, someone needs to sue and that suit would be moot, unless she takes this action.

It reminds me of the Ohio colleges refusing to enforce the new anti-gay amendment in Ohio. Clearly, the left is waiting for lawsuits to show the new amendments are unconstitutional.

(I hope I'm correct.)

[queenjane]

31. Hardly surprising

I've read several post-election suggestions on this board that gay rights be abandoned by Dems so we can win elections. Even though we're appalled, Jennifer Granholm probably thinks she's being politically expedient.

Many of my gay friends predicted that, in the wake of gay marriage bans, state govts. and corporations would use those bans as a pretext to drop same-sex partner benefits. I just didn't think it would happen so quickly.

[StaggerLee]

34. Very disappointing

I can drive to Canada in less than two hours.
Maybe it's not too soon after all...

[HeeBGBz]

36. Some days it's just not worth waking up

Nothing but oppression in the news.

[Florida_Geek]

37. things that make you go Hmmmmmm

From her state web site..

"This month, I traveled to Germany with foreign business experts from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation on this administration's first investment mission. In four days, we met with and made presentations to nearly 50 German automotive, biotech and pharmaceutical ..."

[fujiyama]

94. The state has had trouble

attracting anything not related to automotive stuff. She wants to expand the business opportunities. The state has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and many of those aren't coming back.

Actually my guess is German companies are better on things like same sex benefits. There is a possibility that this vote will hurt the state economically.

[LeftHander]

41. Homosexuals to be detained indefinately....

because voters passed gambling referendum....


As absurd as that sounds what the Gov of Michigan is doing is essentially the same.

What the hell does benefits rights have to do with a referendum on same-sex marriage...??

[regnaD kciN]

83. Because...

...partner benefits are based on the concept of a spousal or quasi-spousal relationship. The language in the amendment bans any recognition of such a relationship unless it's between one man and one woman. Period.

:-(

[htuttle]

42. The Union should NOT accept this -- it's already been negotiated

In fact, that's what the Union said:

UAW lobbyist Alan Kilar said earlier this week that the union reached an agreement with the state in good faith and expected the state to stick with it.

"They agreed to this," Kilar said. "It's a contract and an agreement is an agreement."

If they won't restore the benefits, the Union should demand something to make up for it. This is CRAP. You don't change a contract after it's been agreed to. Well, you can, but if you do, it won't be agreed to anymore and you gotta start over.

[arwalden]

44. Why Is Our Country So Backward?Why All These Regressive Policies And Laws?

[Endangered Specie]

45. And you thought just the South was full of bigots?

So much for the "Blue State can do no wrong theory."

[QC]

74. Shhhhhh...you're not supposed to talk about that. n/t

[Endangered Specie]

75. Yeah, its ok for them to bash us but they have a pretty thin skin

about it ;)

[sonicx]

78. i don't

I'm ashamed of my state for voting for it, especially the Democrats.

[fujiyama]

95. I don't have a think skin

I'm perfectly willing to admit that almost half of this state is filled with brain dead idiots...and even more willing to admit that about 60% are bigoted homophobes and I'm disgusted by their actions.

But at the same time, I'd have to say that more than half of those in red states are filled with brain dead morons. After all, in terms of these bans, MI had the highest % to vote AGAINST it, next to Oregon.

[Chelsea Patriot]

47. Isn't this the Bitch we are suppose to amend the Constitution for?

The argument for the Arnold Amendment on the Democratic side is that if foreign born citizens are allowed to run for President, Granholm would then be eligible.

This Bitch leaped at the opportunity to deny benefits.

Fuck her!

[martinolich]

64. ..No, that "Bitch" is Gov. Arnold S.

...Gender slurs don't make it, even if you DON'T like the actions/views...I haven't, for instance, heard anyone call Ohio Repug Blackwell a "nigger"...

[GiovanniC]

106. Taking a Good Long Look Around, It's No Fucking Wonder We Keep Losing

A Democratic governor who has done a lot of good things for this state and truly is a solid Democrat, who took the same position as Kerry and lots of other prominent Democrats on this gay marriage issue, is forced to uphold the constitution of this state which just happens to now include a piece of trash amendment which she opposed, and instead of being pissed off at all the people who voted for this filth, or even at the Nazis who put the fucking thing on the ballot in the first place, we crucify HER. Call her a "bitch". Withdraw our present and future support for her.

To me, it's no wonder we keep losing if that's the prevailing attitude. Our opponents are ruthless and vicious and gaining ground while we're spending our time fighting the good guys.

[indigonation]

130. Great Point...The pugs all stuck together for this SElection.

They didn't all agree with the Shrub, but they supported him.

I already hear the rumblings and dissent trying to oust her in 2006 as The Michael Moore witch hunt team plans to use the Values propaganda against her. I pledge my efforts to her reelection.

[JerseygirlCT]

48. I'm so confused!

Does she actually support that kind of crap? Is this fear of a law-suit by the red-meat right wing loons? What's behind this?

If it were me, I'd leave this in, and let 'em make a fight of it-- then take it to the Supremes and see if these bogus ammendments are constitutional.

But that's just me, I suppose.

Very disappointing.

[SnowBack]

58. She didn't seem very supportive on Bill Maher

She was quite clear that she felt marriage was for a man and a woman..

She's a disgusting bigot... Just cuz she's a Dem doesn't mean she supports us...

:puke:

[fujiyama]

98. I wouldn't call her a bigot

but she definetely hasn't shown herself to have much political courage.

[Skarbrowe]

51. I can't be insured. Without my domestic partner benefits... I die.

It's as simple as that. No insurance company will touch me. My partner has to pay an obscene amount of money to carry me on her health plan through a county government plan. If this is taken away, I will not be able to afford any of the meds I have to take and I certainly wouldn't be able to afford the upcoming hospital stays.

The truth is, I'm really tired. I hope that there is no further erosion of domestic partner benefits, but for myself, I'm tired of this ridiculous fight.

I grew up believing it was much better to stay in the closet, keep your personal business to yourself and to not even let your family know who you really were. I never in my wildest dreams imagined having any type of domestic partner benefit. When I moved to South Florida they had just won this right in Broward County. But, I can feel the difference already in how my partner is being treated where she works.

I don't want to cause her problems. Teaching in this country has already become hazardous duty.

I really am tired. I feel bad that way back in 2000 before the theft and after, when so many of us were so sure that * couldn't get re-elected that I voiced my opinion that gays shouldn't push the "marriage" word at the bigoted straight folk. I felt deep in my soul that gay marriage would bring out those bigoted voters in droves. It's not that I didn't want gays, like myself, to be able to be married, I deeply felt that the word "marriage" was not as important as all the rights that could come with "civil union" and not scare off the religious intolerant a-holes of this country. I had so many people jump on me about WHEN would be the right time. I don't know when the right time would be. All I know is that the words "gay marriage" have played right into the diabolical hands of Karl Rove. I bet Karl Rove doesn't even care about the subject. He knew that it was like the holy grail to the religious intolerant. It would draw them to the voting booth in a mass of righteous fervor.

I've read many, many letters to the editor in several newspapers and magazines and articles by different columnists that actually thank the mayors of the cities that performed the "televised" gay marriage ceremonies, for helping them to get out the vote by people who would have normally kept their backsides on their couches Nov 2. I don't think these people gave * the win, but I think enough of them came out to vote to keep the margin of theft believable. Hopefully, I am wrong and over half the American population doesn't really hate my guts and want to see me burn in hell. At any other time in my life, I wouldn't give them a second thought regardless. Now, I feel danger in the air. I feel like what the Jews and Gay people, along with the intellingentsia and gypsies and any other non-aryan person must have felt like in early 1930's Germany. You've seen the movies. You've read the books.

Did you ever imagine it happening here?

[One Eye on Canada]

80. We're not in 1930's Germany--yet

As an asthmatic, recovering (from just about everything) lesbian in Massachusetts who enjoys domestic partner benefits thanks to my partner's employer, I certainly hear you. And more than a few of my glbt friends have noticed the similarities between our "status" in today's America and Jews in pre-WWII Germany.

But, I don't think we're there. Yet. Almost half of the country voted against the Prevaricator-in-Chief, and millions of these people take action every day for truth, justice, and the American Way (as opposed to the GOP/Administration's policies of lies, favoritism, and fundamentalism). In other words: We may be being singled out, but we're not in this alone.

And the pictures of gays and lesbian couples getting married might have been "inspirational" to the homophobic voting bloc, but if "they" didn't have those photos, they would have trotted out the old, tired pictures of drag queens and leather daddies they've been using for decades. I think it just shows how damned inconsistent these folks are--a couple of decades ago they hated us because we were (in their view) promiscuous freaks who refused to embrace middle-class values; now they hate us because we want to embrace the ultimate in middle-class assimilation: Getting hitched. There's just no pleasing some people....

Still, the lunatics are running the asylum, so things are going to be scary for a while. This "United Straights of America" phase will pass--goddess willing, it will be over soon! Please, hang in there.

[fujiyama]

99. I have a lot of sympathy

I'm of the wrong skin pigmentation, so I fear that regardless of my citizenship (and country of origin for that matter), the nation will always view me with distrust and suspicioun.

I read an article where a person had Arabic friends come by and their place was searched.

So, what can I expect? Let's see, saw I have a book critical of this administration on my bookshelf. I call someone to put in new carpet, or fix or install something or the other...now they see the book and my skin color - and being a good citizen and patriot - they report me to TIPS or whatever the fuck it's called.

So because of that, I can be detained and held without charges. I can be interogatted without legal representation...and possibly even be tortured - after all the incoming attorney general said the Geneva convention doesn't matter.

So you have my completely sympathy. What disgusts me so much is how many minorities are homophobic.

[davidinalameda]

54. can't really blame her administration

blame the idiot voters who passed the damn proposal

[indigonation]

129. ...and the Legislative Branch in Mich is Republican

There is a check and balance system like we were hoping for in the Federal Elections. The House and Senate in Michigan are both a Republican majority, so it may have been pressure to get the law changed from them.

Michigan has been blue since Reagan, but it is always a very tight race like other swing states. The Gov has to play to both sides, but if you read her bio, she's about as liberal as they come (Canada-BC, Berkley, Michigan). This is the state, you may remember, that Geoffrey Fieger (Kevorkian's attorney) ran on the Dem ticket in 1998. He lost, he was way too controversial, and frankly too liberal.

Jennifer Granholm opposed Prop 2, but the ignorant voters went for it. But I believe by a lower margin than most of the other 11 states on the ballot. Forgive them, they know not what they do.

If it makes you feel any better, there were signs out that tricked the opposition. They said something like "Support Gay Marriage on Proposal 2", so I heard that some people voted NO on it, thinking they were opposing it. HA, that was brilliant.

[blueblitzkrieg]

57. I'm sick of this SHIT!

I hate to say it, but this country sucks. :grr:

[Siyahamba]

62. Governor Granholm hails from British Columbia

Where not only domestic partner benefits are legal but - GASP! - so is same sex marriage.

[jeanarrett]

66. Here's what she said about Proposal 2

back in October:

http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=10035

So why doesn't she just let it end up in the Courts?

[northzax]

69. this is intended to have the issue end up in the courts

almost guaranteed the state will have to give extra concessions to the unions to make up for this (not because he unions really care neccesarily, they just hate to lose anything) but why take it to court, which the state will have to pay millions of dollars to defend?

[jeanarrett]

72. Not good, the State of Michigan

is already facing financial armageddon(sp).

[Strawman]

70. Would've been nice if....

she had delievered that message a few more times than to one catastrophically ill caller on WJR. It's pretty easy to empathize when put on the spot like that. It's alot harder to expend precious political capital educating people that this proposal not only banned gay marriage but also civil unions and would potentially strip people of benefits. I guess she wasn't eager enough to be made proud by the voters to appear in any commercials against Proposal 2 like she did for Proposal 1 to support fucking racinos. Take your horseshit phony concern and take a walk, governor. You just took away insurance and medicine from someone just like that lady you spoke to on the radio. Hope it boosts your poll numbers in Grand Rapids.

[northzax]

67. interesting

now in Michigan, can men (or Women) jointly own property? can they give each other power of attorney? can, in fact, a private company give same sex benefits? This could be interesting, you cannot form a union to share property except with someone of the opposite sex. plain and simple.

By the way, this action was predicted in October if the measure passed: Labor unions say the ballot wording could do away with benefits already negotiated into contracts for same-sex and heterosexual domestic partners and their children. http://www.detnews.com/2004/project/0411/10/v03-315349.htm">Detroit News, October 26, 2004

[regnaD kciN]

86. It would appear...

...that any such benefits offered by a private company would similarly be found unconstitutional.

:-(

[GiovanniC]

105. No, Private Companies Can Do What They Like

But the state government is forced to abide by state laws and the state constitution, no matter how fucked up they may be. If voters in this state banned interracial marriage "or similar unions for any purpose", the government would be forced to abide by that until that ugly law was righteously stricken down by the appropriate court.

[SnowGoose]

73. So much for "cool cities"

She has been (rightly, IMO) concerned that as soon as young people have a salable degree, they tend to skedaddle out of the state at the earliest possible opportunity, to live in nicer (read "cooler") places.

So she's been making efforts to make Michigan cities more desirable. This new move isn't going to help.

I feel bad for people who are getting screwed by this. I know it's weak, but I say take your skills and your education and your money and move somewhere you're welcomed. And it'll probably happen.

[sonicx]

76. jesus...

:eyes:

well...at least washtenaw county (where i live) voted against the hate amemdment.

[Scout]

84. me too

voted against, and in washtenaw county

:hi:

[Marxdem]

85. Wasn't it alone on that?

I thought all the other counties voted for it. I assume my county probably was close to 90% for it. :puke:

[fujiyama]

100. Yeah it was

I remember watching the results for it and until Washtenaw results came in, it was passing by like 70%.

Washtenaw brought it down to 60%. What's even more sad, is MI had the SECOND HIGHEST % of those voting against it. That 40% was actually pretty close, compared to MS and AR, where the bans passed with like 80% of the vote.

[against all enemies]

81. Back to the dark ages.

She should have made them take her to court. Can you imagine losing your health benefits over this? Why is the US the best country?

[fujiyama]

92. This is disappointing

She's done a good job up until now and she opposed the gay marriage amendment as well.

Unfortunately I heard that the amendment was one of the most restrictive in the nation. I suppose the only good thing was that the % that voted against it in MI was a bit higher than most states. I know that in some states their gay marriage bans got like 80% (like in MS).

[0007]

97. America Home of the Brave & the Free" If your not Black, an Indian or Gay

"What this proposal does is go to 'any other similar union for any purpose' and what that means is that a court could interpret that to mean that domestic partnership benefits are in jeopardy, it could mean that couples who are living together might not be able to pass on their property to one another, gay couples may not be able to engage in private contractual arrangements to visit one another in the hospital, or certainly it would jeopardize the collective bargaining agreements that grant domestic partnership benefits that many private companies and even public entities like universities have granted."

[genieroze]

109. I knew it!

This same sex partner crap is just a tactic to save money.

[biglake]

132. Granholm too conservative, pro business

Not left. She disappoints us. She was busy looking at price tags in discount stores and let major business/environmental issues pass....$$$ bottled water production permits for aquifers that were halted by the court ...she didn't fight it. She doesn't seem to be righting any Engler wrongs.

[americanwomanone]

136. I Agree and I won't vote for her again.

She is a huge disappointment and that is coming from someone that has followed and supported her political career. No more.