February 5, 2007
NEWS ITEM: Michigan Court Of Appeals Says No To Benefits For Same Sex Couples.
The judges said that a the ban on same sex marriage, voted into the state constitution back
in 2004, applies to domestic partner benefits. "The marriage amendment's plain language
prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose," the court said.
This wasn't exactly what the voters were being told would happen back in 2004.
Marlene Elwell, campaign director for the Amendment was emphatic, stating that
"This has nothing to do with taking benefits away. This is about marriage
between a man and a woman." But that was double talk. The clear intent of the
groups working to pass the amendment, was to insure that same sex couples could
only be legal strangers in the eyes of the law, and the language of the amendment
reflected that intent precisely. When they told the voters that their intent wasn't
to take benefits away, they were only telling a half truth, if that. Their intent,
was to take everything away from same sex couples that the law might legally
provide...not benefits specifically.
Their rhetoric during the campaign was tactical and dishonest and it worked. And
the proof of that is their silence now, as the rights they kept insisting would not
be taken from same sex couples are now being stripped relentlessly away by the
courts, who are only following the plain and unambiguous language of the
Copyright © February 5, 2007 by Bruce Garrett
All Rights Reserved.
Bruce Garrett Cartoon. Weekly gay editorial cartoon.
This HTML Document, and all linked images, unless otherwise noted,
are copyright © 2007 by Bruce Garrett. All rights reserved.
Send comments, questions and hysterical outbursts to:
This document was created using MultiEdit for Windows and/or
BBEdit for Mac OS/X, The GIMP and/or Adobe Photoshop CS.
It was proofed using Mozilla FireFox