No matter how you view it, Proposal 2 will be a key issue on the Michigan ballot on Nov. 2. The State News has always spoken out strongly against any measure which would eliminate basic rights for any group in our country. Voting yes on Proposal 2, and therefore enacting a ban on gay marriage, would do just that.
On campus, the proposal is being seen as a highly divisive and even partisan issue. Members of ASMSU, the university's undergraduate government, found themselves divided on whether or not to officially take a stance on the marriage amendment, citing a perceived partisan nature behind it. In the end, ASMSU did vote to oppose Proposal 2, and for that they deserve our support.
But as a representative democracy, it is ASMSU's duty to take a stance on issues that impact their constituency. Being a small, university-based representative democracy does not free ASMSU from taking sides any more than their worldly counterparts. Representative government is reliant upon contentious ideas, and the risk involved in disenchanting a portion of the constituency is forever a necessary aspect.
Proposal 2 is essentially flawed legislation. The language of the proposal could cause courts to declare domestic partner benefits for gay couples null and void. Those voting for the proposal would unwittingly remove what rights gay couples did have, not just name marriage as only a male and female partnership. MSU offers these domestic partner benefits to university employees in same-sex unions, and their removal would affect the university, not exclusively the institution of marriage, whatever that may be. As contentious as that sounds, ASMSU proudly supports domestic partner benefits.
Furthermore, we've institutionally stated that there is no viable threat present to marriage between a man and a woman. If such a threat is present, we've roundly asked readers to inform us. We've heard no such reply.
Voting against Proposal 2 also wouldn't impose on religious bodies. Churches, synagogues and mosques still will follow their traditional ways, and no religion would be forced to perform ceremonies for a marriage they disagree with, just as it happens now. Same-sex couples are marrying in a legal sense, not with any malicious intent to the institution of religion or the state. Marriage is not an act of rebellion, and Proposal 2 seems to misunderstand that.
What same-sex couples do want is the ability to visit their partner in the hospital during emergencies. They want to retain custody of children they've legally and lovingly raised with their partner and get joint coverage under their partner's insurance. Regardless of the devotion they showed to their partner, any money or property they shared with their partner would be inherited by their partner's family. They want Michigan to legally recognize their devotion to and love for one another. Threatening it is not.
Everything gay couples want and deserve, straight couples already have. Michiganians should feel duty-bound to give equal rights to everyone and not create precedent for Michigan legislators to label second-class citizens. For this reason, we strongly urge you to vote against Proposal 2.
