News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile

33|175:175
About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism

Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...


The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)

Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008


Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)

Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"
Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.

SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend

An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.

The rights rollback continues in Michigan

by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 12:00:00 PM EST


Court Of Appeals Voids Michigan Domestic Partner Benefits. I hope that our "let the states decide" Dem presidential candidates take note of what happens when you let voters determine the rights of gay folks at the ballot box.

The state's constitutional marriage amendment, which passed in 2004, has now resulted in benefits being taken away from gay couples.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage prevents public institutions from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

Soon after the amendment was passed in 2004 Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D), acting on the advice of  Attorney General Mike Cox (R), terminated domestic partner benefits that had been won by state unions.

Cox also directed University of Michigan and Wayne State University and the city of Kalamazoo to shut down their benefits programs to same-sex couples.

This ruling overturns a county circuit judge's decision that health care benefits are tied to employment, not marriage. The Court of Appeal cited the amendment's language, which disallows marriage for gays and lesbians and civil unions or domestic partnerships.
"The marriage amendment's plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose."
This is bullsh*t -- it should really do wonders for state universities in Michigan that hope to attract excellent faculty and staff.  Good luck with that.
Pam Spaulding :: The rights rollback continues in Michigan
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The rights rollback continues in Michigan | 74 comments
*sigh*
They are going to lose not just LGBT faculty and professionals from the state universities and institutions, but also liberal/progressive/intelligent faculty and professionals that view such provisions as not just what they want for their LGBT friends/loved-ones/family/etc, but also as an important indicator of how accepting/tolerant/open-minded/etc a place is. Other non-LGBT minorities similarly.

The studies have been done to show this; Wisconsin is experiencing similar effects.

Is it no wonder that the US is losing out to Europe and Asia when it comes to leading research?

Minority Rights
What part of equal rights do the right wingers just not get?  They are totally un-American and violate several Constitutional amendments when they do this number of putting  minority groups rights up to vote.

I am equally disgusted by the horizontal racism and bigotry among minority groups, the poor and women.  The divide and conquer ploy continues to work.

It makes me wonder how people can be that stupid.  But then people believe in the invisible bully in the sky who requires them to give their tithe to his representitives in exchange for nothing.

Isn't it amazing how the invisible bully in the sky hate all the different minority groups and rotates among them offering the other minority groups acceptance into the power elite if they will join in on the attack against the currently designated scapegoat?

SuzyQ, I love this:
"Isn't it amazing how the invisible bully in the sky hate all the different minority groups and rotates among them offering the other minority groups acceptance into the power elite if they will join in on the attack against the currently designated scapegoat?"
[ Parent ]
History taught the dummies nothing.
What's next, separate lunch counters and water fountains? 
Gotta keep the imaginary friend happy you know.  They know *exactly* what it likes, it tells them so personally.

My America includes LGBT families.
[ Parent ]
That blows
And it could happen here in Texas, too.  Some cities and counties offer domestic partner benefits, but that may continue only as long as no one decides to challenge it.  We already have a problem with insurance companies trying to weasel out of covering domestic partners under last year's amendment.
Michiganders Are Lucky...
they don't have to drive very far north to Canada.

My understanding was that health care benefits were ruled to be a contract between an employer and its employees and that the courts had ruled this was a private transaction in which the state had no standing to interfere.

I don't understand how none of these cases has yet to find its way to the SOTU. Not that there are any guarantees to be found there.

Possible Strategies To Fight Back
Based along the lines of "taxation without representation"

This is clearly a double standard that financially impacts gays & lesbians, and that might be a way to frame the obvious civil rights violations Michigan is clearly engaging in against it's gay residents

Perhaps a boycott of Michigan-regarding vacations & conventions-is in order

How about finding out the corporate campaign contributors to both the Governor & Attorney General, and boycotting them as well?

Hell, do that with the corporate campaign contributors for all the Michigan politicians who support this blatant homophobia

But, in the end, this judgement won't last forever, at some point, I'd say within the next 10-20 years, same sex unions will be legal everywhere in the US

It's inevitable, progress and history go only one way, forward, and the ranks of the homophobes lessen by the day

???????
What are you smoking?

"I'd say within the next 10-20 years, same sex unions will be legal everywhere in the US"

I'm not smoking anything
Society doesn't move at light speed, even on issues like ending official discrimination against long-and wrongly-stigmatized groups, look how long it took after the Civil War before all Jim Crow laws were officially wiped from the books.  And in some cases, those laws are still in effect even though they're not enforced

Or is it your view that same sex unions will NEVER be legal here in the US, and if that's the case, then why bother fighting and raging against these obviously unjust laws and legal decisions if things will never change for the better?

Now, if you have a way to bring about those results in less than the time I mentioned, 10-20 years, then please do share and I'll enthusiastically spread the word

[ Parent ]
Maybe not the time frame but I agree with Cranky
All studies and polls show that pro-gay sentiment increases as age categories get younger and education levels get higher.

We all may not live long enough (I'm 53 so I might just make it) but with many of the older homophobes dying off, newer generations who have not grown up believing that gay was a word never to be spoken will capture the balance of political power and things will change.

It might change sooner if the Democrats can get hold of the White House and change the balance of power on the SCOTUS.

[ Parent ]
Sensi Star (3rd Place, OMCA)
...is what I'm currently smoking.  Incredible all-over body high with great mind expansion, smooth draw, excellent taste.  Definitely top-quality Oregon home-grown.

As for the statement, Holly, I'm on your side.  In 1976 with the election of Carter and the mainstreaming of pot smokers, we all thought pot would be legal everywhere "in the next 10-20 years".  Especially after 1978, when Carter said in his SOTU,

"Penalties against the possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself... Nowhere is this more clear to me than in the laws against possession of marijuana... Therefore, I support legislation amending federal law to eliminate all federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to 1 oz. of marijuana."
Then Carter's aide got caught in coke scandal, Repugs painted Carter as soft on crime, we got Ronnie Raygun and another 26 years of stupid prohibition.

If you asked me to bet on gay unions (whatever the name) being legal nationwide within my lifetime, I'd ask you to give me 3:1 odds... and I'm only 39 (as of Wednesday).

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

[ Parent ]
BELATED HAPPY BIRTHDAY RUSS

[ Parent ]
Happy Birthday Russ -- here's a cake
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

How's that radio show prep going?

[ Parent ]
lesse if he can blow out *these* candles! :)
happy b-day, Russ!

Lurleen on Twitter
[ Parent ]
I knew there was a reason I liked you!
Aquarians are good people. :) Happy Belated Birthday!
[ Parent ]
Happy Belated B-Day, CyberHubby!
Take a toke for me, the wife, and the kid, eh?
[ Parent ]
You mean, "the wives", don't you?
We wouldn't want to upset Joseph Smith, after all, cyber-wife!

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]
Boycott!
Boycott Boycott Boycott!!  It worked in overturning Amendment 2 in Colorado a few years back.  I also say that every gay and lesbian person in Michigan should not file income taxes this year.  If they won't give us our rights, then they don't need our tax money either.
How would we go about doing that?
The only way this would work is if we had enough people as working as a body, withholding their money, and fighting the IRS.

To be honest, I tried this a few years ago.  I just stopped paying my taxes.  I lost my nerve after a short period of time when the threatening letters poured in.  I am only one person, I need to eat, and I can't afford to to have my wages garnished with interest.

I would love to try it again, but I need more clout so I am not a gnat's scream into a windstorm.

[ Parent ]
A measured response is best
Josh, that's great that you tried that.  Anyone wishing to follow suit might consider the following:
1) be sure you will get proper publicity for why taxes are being witheld, and
2) don't withold all taxes - only those associated with your partner's health care, for example.
3) get legal council first!

Dr. Mercy Heatley, a long-time peace activist in England, did something similar recently.  Link here.  She was effective in getting her message out because she took care of points 1 and 2 (and probably 3, although I dont know for sure) above. 

Witholding small amounts of taxes won't make the gov't buckle, but it can snap some people's attention to understand better how the bigotted laws affect us.

Lurleen on Twitter

[ Parent ]
Is there a bigger prize?
Is there a bigger prize for these people that we don't see?  It just makes me wonder sometimes the way our struggle for civil rights is going.  We are facing some issue that are not dis-similar to civil rights African-Americans faced during MKL's times.  It makes me wonder sometimes if the GLBT community is a testing ground for a bigger prize the right wants.....repeal of civil-rights for African-Americans.  Similar arguments are being waged in churches that are the same arguments used during MLK's time.

Call me crazy (which I am sure some already do :-)) but.

well, they're clear that they don't want non-citizens to have any rights.
[ Parent ]
The good part
of a decision like this is that it shows that these marriage amendments are more far-reaching than the voters intended, which will only help to erode support for them.  If they were truly limited to use of the word marriage only, then the amendments would continue to enjoy strong support.  But as people see the side effects, they (Michiganers and people in other states that don't have amendments yet) will begin to question their wisdom.  This is how the amendment in Arizona got defeated.

I am with the cranky-one: Within 10-20 years same-sex unions will be recognized in every state and by the federal governement.  Will it be called marriage? Don't know.  But we are on a fast-moving train that has not been halted by the right-wing's strongest effots.

It is going to happen in Indiana
My home state - IU was one of the first to offer DP health benefits - amazing as it was so many years ago. They had either get up and lobby against the passage of this bill, or they will find their fabulous music school (among other areas) sorely short of staff and faculty.

When will it end?

Wake Up, Indiana
Are you not following the news in your own state? Your state legislature is well on the way to putting an amendment on the ballot there, and it, too, would bare any recognition of same-sex couples. Which means, of course, that DP benefits could start disappearing in Indiana some time after November 2008.
[ Parent ]
So disappointing...
My partner and I were at the U. of Michigan and actively fought to have gays and lesbians protected under the university's by-laws. I wonder how this is going to affect that.  The U. of M. needs to fight this tooth and nail.  Maybe they should dump being a state university and become private.  They probably don't get enough state money to make a difference anyway...
ANd ya just know....
The lying hypocritical pharisees of the ADF and other RR organizations, in the run-ups to these amendments kept bleating, "This will not affect any one's benefits..."

God hates all liars, especially the religious ones.

Michigan or Maryland?
I'm in those very beginning stages with someone long-distance, where you have those hypothetical discussions of "if this were to work out..." She works at a university in Michigan and I work at a private company in Maryland (and we do offer DP benefits). Score one in favor of me not being the one to pick up and move my life. Not exactly a factor I was hoping to have to consider.
I"m no expert, but there are, perhaps a couple of things gay
Michiganlanders can do in light of this decision. While I haven't looked over the state's human rights designations for "marital status"- I think that any "single" person who applies for a public position could sue if they hire a "married" person instead - and accuse that publicly funded institution of wasting taxpayer monies paying a higher salary/benefits to a married employee when they can get the same skills (and less leave time) with a "single" employee. Let the con-servatives argue that the public should be spending more tax dollars providing public jobs for "married" folks when "singles" can do the work for less drain on the taxpayer's dime.

At the same time, gays can argue that "married" people must have a different, lower wage scale because they receive extra compensation in health benefits - how hard would it be to compute the number of "married" people draining the state coffers of a state that is struggling to balance a budget?

We need to remember that one weapon we do have is that legally "single" people are the majority - and are categorically discriminated against by the MINORITY if the state continues to prefer hiring more expensive employees simply because they are "married." It seems to me that this is when we can make a very convincing argument that no state is required to provide anyone health benefits - an argument Republicans have been claiming for years.

We should start looking for ways these setbacks can be turned into real victories - and make the fundies who lied their way into passing these travesty amendments look like the treasonous dominionists they truly are.

can't ask marital status in an interview
Kevin, it is illegal to ask after one's marital status in an interview.  This doesn't mean that the employer can't guess with certainty about it, but prospective employers know better than to be caught "knowing" this bit of info unrelated to the job.  So legally, you can;t sue the state for hiring more married people, or less married people, because theoretically they just hire people.

Lurleen on Twitter
[ Parent ]
This doesn't mean that the employer can't guess with certainty about it,
That flaunting of heterosexuality called "a wedding ring" can help them guess within a good degree of correctness.
[ Parent ]
haha
I wear one too, but I guess they'll be guessing wrong, eh?  That's what they get for assuming.
[ Parent ]
That's why I phrased it the way I did, LOL

[ Parent ]
Nope.
I don't wear one, neither does my husband.

My America includes LGBT families.
[ Parent ]
while they can't ask it directly
they can infer from other information about your sexuality.  Be honest, how many straight people do we know that DON'T talk about their spouses and/or their kids?  Even when not asked, they tell.  I've done a lot of career counseling in my time and I can't tell you how many times (esp. for the old-timers) they make sure they have how many years they've been married, how many kids and grandkids they have, and what church they attend on their resume.

The "sin" of omission can be very damning for us.  We have been taught to not discuss our lives for fear of being discriminated against, but that same fear can set off bells in others.

[ Parent ]
Nice post, Callie.
If you post a pic of your beloved, you flaunt.

If a straight person posts a parallel pic, they celebrate.  They honor.  They affirm. 

I told this story long ago, but it's a good 'n' and I tell it again: I once was sipping a shake outside of a malt shop.  Down the street come two flatbed trucks.  On the first is a bride and groom atop a snowmobile.  On the second were more snowmobiles and the remainder of the wedding party.  The trucks were honking and streamers and the bridal veil were trailing.

"Flaming straight people," I said to my friend.

Imagine if gay people did something similar, if they launched an impromptu parade and made the greatest spectacle that they could to celebrate/flaunt their nuptials.  Tongues would wag like the tails of golden retrievers.

[ Parent ]
AMEN SISTER

[ Parent ]
Speaking of this
On my way leaving work this evening one of the security guys, who has suddenly started acting like he's my best buddy, struck up a conversation with me and then asked, "So, how long ya been married?" and pointed to his own wedding band.  I said, "11 years."  He said, "WOW!  Really!  Just three years for me, but they've just flown by."  It was an amazingly ordinary conversation, except that he didn't realize he was having this very ordinary conversation with a dyke.
[ Parent ]
this just makes me sick
I grew up in MI, and let me tell you when they passed that stinking anti-human amendment in 2004, it set me reeling.  It is an amazing thing to realize that the majority of your neighbors think they're more human than you are.  I only go back now for brief visits to family.  I make sure to gas up in Ontario while en route, and I pay the sky high hotel taxes in ONT too rather than stay more cheaply in bigotted MI.  I am bitter beyond belief.

Lurleen on Twitter
I thought that was only applicable to states with laws protecting
"marital status" in employment - and there are quite a few who haven't done that.

Of course, while that can be an obstacle, we all know heterosexuals can't get married without making a big production out of it in the office, too. . .which suddenly means the taxpayers are permanently providing a heterosexual "bonus" to married persons. There's a good opportunity right there to slap a suit on the government for wasting taxpayer monies. Use the Republican arguments against them. The state has no business providing "special rights" for a sexual lifestyle which has enormous numbers of adulterous members, contributes to the spread of STDs, and can often be an enabler for child sexual predators and rapists.


You go, kevinbgoode
Your post rocks. Promoting heterosexual privileges at the expense of another group of citizens, and then denying that you are doing so, is so wrong. Thanks, also, for calling attention to individual hetero-identified people who not only don't reject their privilege but actually rejoice in it (e.g., talking ad nauseum about their 'husbands' or 'wives,' about their wedding ceremonies, etc.) No one ever calls people out on how these actions ARE political and how they reinforce marriage inequality.
[ Parent ]
Vote with our feet
Obviously, not everyone can, but for those of us for whom it's an option, I think we need to make the states understand the cost of measures like this. U of M is a good school, but so is the UC system, and while we may not have true marriage equality yet, the DP setup is pretty good, and it's not likely to disappear.
definately
and each foot vote should be accompanied by a letter to the department, president and regents of the university you voted against, with full explanation as to why.  *especially* if you're an out of stater, because they lose *huge* bucks when out of staters don't come.

Lurleen on Twitter
[ Parent ]
Money is the only way...
...for the next at least 20 years - that we will be able to win any rights. So YES - write and call - and tell heads of tourism bureaus of states like Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, (soon to be) Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, and all the anti-human states in the west why you won't be taking your BIG.GAY.DOLLAR to their tourism spots.

Call and write heads of universities, those of you ready to plunk down tens of thousands of dollars for your - or your children's - undergrad or grad degrees.

We made a major financial sacrifice to move to NYC from FL in 2006 - we pay a lot higher taxes (after all don't the blue states provide most of the taxes, compared to the red states), and a homestead exemption on our condo in Miami Beach, but it was - and still IS - worth it.

Spitzer, Gov of NY - just announced that he is tripling the budget for LGBT community and health programs. In Florida, they keep on keeping on in their bigotry against the LGBT population, and continue to keep us from adopting the HIGHEST number of children languishing in an underfunded foster system.

So yes - PLEASE - call "Them" - tell "Them" - let them hear through where you spend your time, and most importantly your money, what you think of states that would label you as half or less a human, states where they will take your taxes and your BIG.GAY.DOLLAR, but won't give you any rights.

Thank you,
Julien

[ Parent ]
and tell heads of tourism bureaus of states like Ohio,
From queerty 1/30/2007:

Cleveland Wants Your Gay Love
And, Of Course, Your Money

Cleveland, Ohio, loves the gays. No, let's amend that. It loves them. That's right, they love them. Cleveland especially love when they come to there and spend their money. How do we know? Well, the city's tourism board's publishing a handy-dandy gay travel guide to court the homos. Teaming up with the LGBT Community Center, The Convention and Visitors Bureau of Greater Cleveland has worked tirelessly to compile a comprehensive list of gay bars, clubs, businesses and the such to show the rest of the world that "The Forest City"'s more than just Drew Carey's birthplace.

While the Bureau's certainly thrilled by the new developments, not everyone's so enthused by the prospect. According to the city's Fox affiliate, Ohio's Christian Alliance president Chris Long thinks the city should concentrate on attracting more families, rather than spending their time and money courting the cocksuckers.

It seems to us, however, that Cleveland really can't afford to be picky. What the fuck do they have there, anyway? The Rock and Roll Museum? Sure, we guess that's exciting, but does it warrant an entire vacation to Cleveland? We think not. So, unless the city promises to offer every single homo some sweet farm ass, we're not buying. No way. If we're going anywhere in Ohio, it's gonna be Cincinnati. Gotta love the 'Nati

[ Parent ]
I actually called the Cleveland Tourism Board two days ago
I told them politely but firmly and they said that they were just finding out how bad that law was. Some hospitals have made "unspoken" or "unwritten" promises that no LGBT partner will be left out of an ER if their partner gets critically hurt whilst water skiing on vacation, or gets hit by a car, or in some other sort of accident, but unwritten rules don't cut  it for me in a life or death situation. The people were really nice, but the problem is we are a minority. The majority of people really have NO CLUE how these kinds of amendments make our lives hell. Doesn't affect them, so they don't even really read or learn more about it. So their selfishness and apathy, while not the vitriolic meanness of the fundies, has my derision also.
[ Parent ]
I'm with you!
"Unwritten" doesn't cut it.  That makes it too easy for some random homophobe to kick us out of the hospital room or refuse to do a procedure until they speak with the "legal" next-of-kin.  All the while they get to fall back on the "it's not in our policy" argument.  In states with these amendments, it doesn't matter what kind of agreements we have, because there is an amendment that overrides ANY recognition of our relationships.

It's time to wake up and stop being so complacent in our own oppression and sleeping in the bed (metaphorically speaking) of those who oppress us.

[ Parent ]
I'm no lawyer
but a friend of mine's lover was in and out of hospitals and nursing homes before finally succumbing to MS and on many occasions my friend had to confront hostile medical staff. He got something, I'm not sure what it's called so check with your lawyer, but it was essentially a Power Of Attorney for medical purposes and he always carried it with him just in case. There were occasions that he had to call the police to help him enforce his legal rights as regards to his partner and I can't count how many lawsuits he had to threaten to get to be listened to.  If you and your partner don't have something like this talk to a lawyer and get one and then don't be afraid to fight for your rights.
[ Parent ]
That is just sad
I read an article written by the breathtakingly evil Ann Coulter (I was atoning for a sin at the time, and sought to punish myself appropriately) and she responded to the gays visiting their families in the hospital issue with something like:  "Of course gays can see their lovers in the hospital.  You can see anyone in a hospital.  You can visit complete strangers in the hospital."

Talking points like this, flammable as they are with all that straw stuffed in the man-suit, are what keep Joe Sixpack reeling about gay marriage.  Of course you can visit your lover in the hospital.  Unless, of course, your lover's biological family hates your hellbound hide, then you have fuck all chance of getting in.  And you had better hope for a sympathetic staff person if there is an emergency situation, and not some RN who just can't let you in because of her "deeply held religious convictions."

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I know
We've got it.  Had to get a new one when we moved from AL.  Nice chunk of change for something that you still have to fight tooth and nail to get anyone to pay attention too.  All I can do is pray my partner isn't dying on the damn table while I'm calling the cops. 

Yeah, yeah, I know...it's something.  Don't bitch, right?

Can you tell I'm bitter?

The cops will probably get called if something like that happens to me, but it'll be for me going completely apeshit on their asses.

Not very ladylike but I don't think I'll really care when someone I love is dying.  Not much is going to matter then.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely, we must have all possible legal documentation
But I am not going to go for "fun" to a state that would require me to schlep a file of legalese with me EVERYWHERE - especially on vacation - i.e. out swimming, hiking, etc - anywhere an accident could happen that might render one of us in an accident, and if we didn't have our legal folder on our person - the time it would take to get it from hotel room, etc. might be the last time to say goodbye. I am sorry to sound so morbid but it seems that concrete, visual examples are the only way to get through to Mr and Ms. Joe Apathetic Straight American - my 2 cents.
[ Parent ]
No kidding!
I guess I'll have to remember to get a waterproof baggie to tote my five pound stack of legal documents with me the next time I go snorkeling in the Carribean.  Never know what might happen!

Actually, something like that did happen to a couple, Julien.  They were jogging and one had a heart attack.  The EMS people wouldn't let him ride with them because he didn't have his paperwork proving his "right" to be there.

His partner died in route to the hospital.

[ Parent ]
in New Jersey
there was a case recently where two women with a CIVIL UNION and a copy of the New Jersey law were told by the hospial staff that they didn't know what that meant, and wouldn't let one make decisions for the other. They put the hospitalized one's wedding ring in the hospital safe instead of letting her spouse have it! Basically nothing short of marriage is sufficient.
[ Parent ]
one jewish dyke, can you provide
their names or a newspaper link.  i could use this story to good effect.  thx!

Lurleen on Twitter
[ Parent ]
what civil union?
Lurleen,
Actually our hostess posted this story as part of a thread earlier today...I knew I has read it somewheres...here's the link to the story and I'll have to go and look again what thread (short memory as well a being a terrible speller)

http://www.philly.co...

[ Parent ]
thanks!
guess I missed it the first time around.

Lurleen on Twitter
[ Parent ]
I'll look too Lurleen
That's not the first time I've seen that story today. I'll retrace my steps and see if I can find it also.
[ Parent ]
IT TOOK AWHILE LURLEEN BUT HERE IT IS
I was checking everywhere else and it was in a Blender thread.

http://www.philly.co...

[ Parent ]
thank you Alan!
[ Parent ]
YVW

[ Parent ]
Civil unions: sort of
http://www.pamshouse...
Link to Blend thread which mentions Rozz and Paula's ordeal.
[ Parent ]
Glad others were able to post the links
since I didn't check back until now.
[ Parent ]
Exactly!
Basically nothing short of marriage is sufficient.

And we're setting for less at our own peril.

[ Parent ]
As a Michigander...
Prop 2 that passed back in 2004, was a serious blow to many of us.  We fought tooth and nail to gain DP rights from our employers by using the educational system as our example.  Now with this ruling, it speaks loud and clear that we are not welcome in the Great Lakes State.
As a Michigander, I have a few ideas for those of you from other locations...

Call, write and email the following companies telling them that you will no longer visit their locations and/or buy their products due to the hostile climate in their state.  Be nice, but be firm.  They will try to tell you that this was beyond their control and that the people of Michigan voted for this.  Remind them that during the 2004 election cycle, they had an opportunity to speak out against prop 2 and didn't and until they speak out for all Michiganders' rights, you will not support them.  Here is a partial listing.
(sorry, you will have to google for numbers, emails, and address...)

Big Boy Restaurants
Bissell Vacuums
Border's Books
Comerica Bank
Dow Chemical
Hungry Howies Pizza
Gerber Baby Products
Gordon Food Service
Kellogg's
La-Z-Boy furniture
Little Ceasar's Pizza
Meijer's (superstores -very homophobic company)
Old Orchard Fruit Juices
Spartan Stores (mainly midwest)
Steelcase Office Furniture
of course all of the Big 3 automakers
Jiffy Mix

These are Michigan based companies... if you find more, let them know too.


Damn . . .
I feel compelled to stick by Borders.  They are very supportive of the Democratic Party. Anyone suggest any alternatives? Barnes and Noble is way too cozy with the Repugs for my liking.
[ Parent ]
Told ya so
The lying hypocritical pharisees of the ADF and other RR organizations, in the run-ups to these amendments kept bleating, "This will not affect any one's benefits..."

I've been telling people for years that these were bald-faced lies and that if these crazy fundies are going after marriage, what will stop them from going after anything and everything else?

They don't want us to marry, adopt, foster, own a business, have a job, live in our neighborhoods, work in their schools, ad nauseum.  Anything they can find to take from us, they'll try.  Now, apparently, they don't want us to even have health insurance, yet...we're not supposed to have social programs that help out the downtrodden either.

So, what do you think their underlying message is to us?

Still don't know???

DIE, MOTHERF***ER, DIE!!!!!!

That's the message.

Or something very similar
I'm leery of their ability to conceptualize a 12 letter words though.
[ Parent ]
forked tongued lies and deceptions
Over at ADF alliancealert.org, the bigot lawyers are bragging about Michigan's Appeals Court doing the right thing.  BRAGGING
http://www.allianced...

Marriage protected in Michigan, appeals court voids "domestic partner" benefits
Friday, February 02, 2007, 2:10 PM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
ADF: ACLU attempt to unravel Michigan marriage amendment should be thwarted
KALAMAZOO, Mich. - The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the state's constitutional amendment protecting marriage as a union between one man and one woman prohibits public institutions from extending marriage benefits to unmarried couples, including same-sex "domestic partners."

"All government programs should comply with state law, and the appeals court has correctly interpreted the state laws on marriage," said ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt, who authored a friend-of-the-court brief on the case along with ADF-allied attorney James Wierenga.  "Michigan law expressly prohibits marriage substitutes.  As the court recognized, government entities are free to give health and other benefits to employees, as long as it's on an equal basis, without basing them on a marriage-like status."

OMG, another homophobe legal site explains it precisely why the Court of Appeals nixed benes.....it's because say U of M specifically defined who was eligible for dp benefits the same as how it defined some qualifications for married people to get benes....(see quote below).  In other words, in the pass when there wasn't a provision to grant same sex benes, the university used the same perrimeters as requirements for married to get them...Talk about a catch 22. 
"The benefits plans violated the Michigan marriage amendment, the Court of Appeals rightly reasoned, because the government plans at issue extended health insurance benefits to the same-sex partner of an employee, if the employee and partner showed that they are in a relationship substantially meeting the statutory qualifications a man and a woman must meet in order to be legally married (i.e., the partners are above a certain age, they not blood relatives, they have the mental capacity to consent to the relationship, they are not married to someone else, etc.). Whether the benefit is health insurance or season tickets to the U. of Michigan men's' water polo team,  governmental units in Michigan may not condition receipt of the benefit on being in a relationship that tracks with the state statutory requirements for marriage. "
http://www.constitut...

ADF- Alliance Defense Fund and similar are truly evil.  These legal groups (also Liberty Counsel from Florida) pride themselves in training their army of future bigot lawyers to continue exactly what they just did in Michigan.

Am I understanding this right?
The very fact that the requirements for providing DP benefits are similar to those required for married couples is the reason for the bennies being cut down?  Basically, because we are more or less being put on a level playing field even when it's called something else (hmmm, sounds like the same issue with civil unions to me), the new amendment disallows such benefits.
[ Parent ]
bigots will get caught in their own trap
That was my interpretation.  Hopefully ADF and the like are cooking their own goose....this convoluted double speak is unquestionably DISCRIMINATION and the locking out of a segment of the population from equal access to the benefits of teh state.
[ Parent ]
Sadly, it's the law
& calling it bullsh*t doesn't change it. The voters of Michigan passed it, & now those who voted for it are getting the results they voted for.
It's Coming
Yes, Pam and everyone else, this is a terrible ruling.  On the other hand,let's not panic.  As a Michigander who has health benefits through my retired partner's affiliation to a Michigan university, I have to clarify: Domestic partner benefits have not been "taken away" as of this moment because the case is being appealed.  Nothing is going to happen quickly.  Furthermore, the University of Michigan's president vowed to fight this and it's also entirely unclear what the ruling could mean in re/retirees.  There's lots more litigation ahead.  My hope is that this will drag on into 2008 and 2009 when the national and state climate will be more conducive to sense.

I don't think I'd ever quote Pat Buchanan before, but he said recently in an interview that same-sex marriage was going to be legal around the country, that it was inevitable, and that conservatives had already lost the battle on this one, despite all appearances.  I suppose he meant that the various states with pro-gay policies were the beginning of the end for people like him.  I know things look discouraging right now, but ten years ago, who could have predicted any states at all would have domestic partner legislation, civil unions, and bona fide marriage?  The issue wasn't on our radar screens.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

The upside (trying to think positively)
I'm pissed by this ruling, but I think there's an upside: It provides concrete evidence about how marriage inequality DOES disenfranchise lesbian and gay citizens. Drawing from what Pam noted, I think that this can be clear evidence that civil unions and domestic partnerships (for opposite-sex and same-sex couples) are NOT the same in status as marriage, in terms of rights and recognition. So, the Democratic candidates who say they're "just not there yet" on "gay" marriage, but think civil unions are a "step in the right direction" and just as equal, can and should be called on this. Second-class citizenship is never okay. And, grounding your hesitance to uphold the Constitution to protect the citizens you claim you want to represent in your religiosity/faith, is weak and obviously politically motivated.

One more thing, opposite-sex couples, especially those who consider themselves "liberal" or "progressive": Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't exercise your marriage rights, and thereby reinforce marriage inequality, until everyone who wanted to marry the partner of their choice could do so? Wouldn't that be dignified?

Sad consequences
When Michigan was contemplating this draconian law, I wrote every newspaper in the state that I could find an e-mail address to the editor. One was published, but I am certain most were read.  (No, I never lived in Michigan).

After the law came into effect, I wrote your Gov and others to tell them that whenever possible I would direct my employeer and my companies dollars elsewhere. So for I have not done business again in the state. In addition, my personal dollars will never be spent in your state.  I know this hurts the gay people left behind, but I feel that the only way people change is when it gets too painful not to. People of color moved to the state to get into a frienlier social climate and for good jobs.  I suggest gay Michigan people do the same.  Sure it costs some big bucks to move, but it pays off immediately. 

While I agree with others who point out that eventually these discriminatory laws will be seen for what they are, I feel that I am too old to wait another 20 years for this change to take place.

vanhattan

The rights rollback continues in Michigan | 74 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Report TOS Violations


Join the Blend Chat Room


Premium Sponsors


BlogAds





Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds

Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs

frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox