As a paper that was fairly outspoken in its problems with Proposal 2, it was frustrating to watch it easily pass - gaining favor with roughly 59 percent of voters - in November. The proposal, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman was, in our eyes, unnecessary. Gay marriage, after all, in no way posed the threat to marriage between a man and woman that the proposal's advocates were hollering about.

Now, more than three months later, an ugly offshoot of the flawed legislation has reared its overbroad head. The Thomas More Law Center, a religious law center in Ann Arbor, is using the proposal to try to prevent the Ann Arbor Public Schools from providing same-sex benefits. Although the Washtenaw County Circuit Court initially denied the case in 2003 (because it was filed prior to the proposal's passage), the center is asking the Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse the decision.

Arguing that domestic partnerships are the same thing as same-sex marriages, the group has made it its mission to strip homosexuals of opportunities to reap their partners' benefits. After all, why should a person that is not heterosexual receive health care anyway, right? Wrong.

Many of Proposal 2's detractors saw this coming when the legislation passed, but that doesn't make it any less sickening when these arguments come to light. It's ludicrous to maintain that a person shouldn't receive benefits based on sexual orientation. It also seems hypocritical, because many of the people who would argue homosexuals should not be allowed their partner's benefits are members of religions that preach tolerance and equal treatment.

It's funny isn't it? For all the strides we've made as a society to try and eliminate racism and sexism, we're taking steps forward that essentially seek to eliminate the rights of homosexuals. Regardless of whether you agree with someone's sexual practices, arguing that they should be of lesser status in society based on those practices is ignorant, discriminatory and wrong.

We can only hope that the Michigan Court of Appeals will see the light in this case and continue to grant these tax-paying citizens the opportunities everyone else enjoys.