Michigan Rep. Ken Bradstreet, R-Gaylord, is calling for outright discrimination by moving to exclude domestic partner benefits from state employee contracts.
Unfortunately, Proposal 2 passed in Michigan, but the exact language of the amendment is vague, leaving individual interpretations to determine if domestic partner benefits get thrown on the chopping block.
A piece of legislation this vague might not have been the best thing to pass. If no one really knows the law's true limits of power, how can Bradstreet demand the state act on a complete gray area?
We don't think he should.
On Nov. 2, Michigan already wrote bigotry, hatred and discrimination into the state's constitution. Gay residents of Michigan already got the memo - people in their own state don't want them there. So why add insult to injury? Our state doesn't need to add discriminatory laws on top the already restrictive constitution.
The five state labor contracts under negotiation right now might include same-sex benefits, but they wouldn't go into effect until Oct. 1, 2005.
Under the Bradstreet plan, the state wouldn't be taking away already existing benefits from same-sex couples - the state has never offered benefits to same-sex couples to begin with. But the law would securely disallow any possibility of including them in future state employment contracts.
If legislators plan to let this move slide in the name of sanctity of marriage, then they're going to have to cut benefits for those formerly in heterosexual civil unions as well. Singling out just the gay and lesbian couples would be clear and offensive discrimination.
What's the real logic behind the plan? If it's cutting the dead weight of benefits the state government is no longer obligated to offer - that kind of thinking just won't cut it. No one would tolerate cutting benefits for any other minority group in an effort to save the government money. It's simply inhumane.
We can't help but disagree with Bradstreet who said, "It's unfathomable how, before the ballot boxes are hardly put away, some state leaders are going against citizens' wishes in the labor negotiation process."
It has never been wrong for any employer, including a state government, to provide equal benefits to any employee, nor should it be. Equal protection under the law is thankfully one of the rights granted to Michiganians, and we suggest Bradstreet and like-minded legislators remember that.
In our opinion, Proposal 2 should not have passed, but it did. Even so, intolerable laws should not be piled on top of a discriminatory constitution. Even under Proposal 2, there's no reason to restrict employers from following their own methods to guarantee the livelihood, security and health of all employees and their partners - even if that employer is the state.
Even then, keeping Michigan's businesses free of government control should be a bonus side effect to our state stepping up and treating unmarried homosexual and heterosexual couples with the compassion they deserve by virtue of all being human.
