http://statenews.com Although Penny Gardner has been with her partner for 11 years, they still don’t depend on each other when it comes to their health. As a visiting professor in Women, Gender and Social Justice, Gardner isn’t enrolled for health benefits due to her fixed term on campus. en-us Foundry4 Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:07:41 -0400 Mon, 12 May 2008 14:28:19 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16869/view This news story by Joseph Terry is probably the most precisely accurate story published by any newspaper or media outlet anywhere in America regarding the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling on the Marriage Protection Amendment. However, one correction: Mr. Terry reported: "(AFA-Michigan President Gary) Glenn said the AFA actually supported an even more ambitious plan in Ann Arbor that would make the other eligible individual any person the employee wished, though the plan didn’t pass." In fact, AFA-Michigan did not support the Ann Arbor plan that I discussed with Mr. Terry. I simply stated that we believed the plan proposed by the U-M Graduate Employees union was written broadly enough that it would be constitutional. What we would support as good public policy, and what's constitutional, are two entirely different things. AFA-Michigan believes that because of the proven benefits of marriage to society over thousands of years, the ideal public policy would be for government employers to uniquely encourage and financially incentivize marriage between a man and a woman, and we would support legislation to that effect. But in the absence of such a law, if U-M or MSU chooses to offer benefits more broadly, as they have, it's not unconstitutional. Homosexual activists quoted in this and other media reports have made clear that what they really care about after all is not employment benefits, since benefits will continue, but their failure to win social, political, and legal approval of homosexual behavior and/or homosexual "marriage." Along with the overwhelming majority of Michigan voters who supported the Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004, AFA-Michigan will continue to work instead — as the amendment states — "to secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for society and for future generations of children" by ensuring 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." Mon, 12 May 2008 03:10:40 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16869/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16872/view For the first time in my memory, I partially agree with Mr. Glenn. Activists do care about social, political and legal sanctions of their relationships. We are are disappointed that the voters in this state were misled to believe that the amendment they approved would not affect domestic partner benefits — they clearly did, at no small cost both to the finances of the affected organizations, but to the psyches of the affected families. I do, however, continue to quarrel with Mr. Glenn on his assertion that by ensuring that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage…" will somehow "secure and preserve the benefits of marriage…". Moreover, contrary to Mr. Glenn's assertion, benefits are NOT offered equally to married heterosexual couples and to "other eligible individuals". A married couple need not live together, share finances or clear any other hurdle in order to be protected. Whereas our families and children must meet these requirements in order to access health care as an employment benefit. Yes, we wish to have recognition of our families. And, yes, we believe that the ongoing failure to provide such recognition harms our state at a time when it can least afford such harm. I am pleased that our state institutions spent the money they did so that they could continue to protect their employees. I am disappointed, deeply, that they had to. Mon, 12 May 2008 08:37:50 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16872/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16884/view I've always wondered about that 'protecting and defending marriage' stuff. It seems that in excluding same-sex couples there will be fewer marriages. Somebody please explain to me what will be lost if we allow same-sex couples to marry and receive all the benefits of traditional couples? What is being 'defended' against? This will create a brain-drain in Michigan, as bright, talented, skilled Gays and Lesbians say 'screw this!', and take their valuable human capital to places that respect and value all people. Can Michigan afford to lose that talent? Mon, 12 May 2008 12:10:48 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16884/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16886/view “to secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for society and for future generations of children” Maybe I'm way off base here, but shouldn't marrige be about the love 2 people have for one another, and the desire to be with eachother for the rest of thier lives? The "benefits" of marrige should be done away with completely. That's the only way to protect the true sanctity of marrige – make marrige about love and respect again, and take away the incentives. Too many people are getting married simply for the benefits. Mon, 12 May 2008 12:20:56 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16886/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16892/view Don't worry, Gary…even though your ridiculous and discriminatory amendment passed, it hasn't stopped my plans for a gay marriage. We've made a little bit of an adjustment, but it'll work out just fine. See, I'm going to have an opposite-sex gay marriage. I will be marrying one of my good friends just for the benefits. We're going to have the ceremony, the showers, the reception, the whole 9 yards. We will file our taxes jointly. We will be able to visit each other in the hospital whenever we feel. We will write our wills so that the first to go will be able to leave everything to the other. We will even have health joint health insurance. The only difference is it's all going to be a front, we're still going to be in same-sex relationships with our real partners. Maybe we'll even join the AFA. On second thought, no…we'll leave that to you and your bigoted friends. Focus on your own damn family. Mon, 12 May 2008 14:28:19 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16892/view