A letter to the Attorney General of Michigan, following passage of Proposal 2 (Michigan’s version of the anti-gay Marshall/Newman amendment):
Citizens for the Protection of Marriage have lied to the people of Michigan.
Time and again, they swore that Proposal 2 was only about defining marriage as between one man and one woman and not about denying health benefits to same-sex couples.
In their own campaign literature they stated: “Proposal 2 is Only About Marriage. Marriage is a union between husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is – for families today and future generations.”
Their chairwoman Marlene Elwell told USA Today on Oct. 15, 2004, “This has nothing to do with taking benefits away. This is about marriage between a man and a woman.”
Eric Doster, the attorney who represented CFPM before the Michigan Board of Canvassers Hearing on Aug. 23, 2004 said, “But there would certainly be nothing to preclude that public employer from extending those benefits if they so chose.”
Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan was quoted on Mlive.com as calling allegations that the amendment language could affect domestic partner benefits a “scare tactic” and insisted “public employers could offer domestic partnership benefits if they want to.”
As a result of an intentionally misleading campaign, the people of Michigan were mislead into believing they were voting for a simple, traditional definition of marriage. Instead, the amendment is being interpreted to create state-sponsored discrimination. Mr. Cox, your interpretation of the marriage amendment takes away health care from Michigan families at a time when health care is at a premium. Your opinion also ignores case law supporting domestic partner benefits. This is not acceptable.
As a citizen and a taxpayer, I call on you to retract your overly-broad, discriminatory and cruel interpretation of the marriage amendment. This amendment was marketed as only being about marriage. Michigan families are trusting you to keep it that way.
Source: Fair Michigan Majority
Here is the background for the letter. The blockquote is from the Fair Michigan Majority blog.
Pingback: Equality Loudoun » Bye bye business?
News release, June 24, 2004, by the Coalition for a Fair Michigan, the campaign committee that opposed Proposal 2, Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment:
“The Coalition for a Fair Michigan said today that they were happy to find common ground with the Michigan affiliate of the American Family Association, one of the lead proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban legal recognition of any relationships other than opposite-sex marriage. Last night, at a forum on the amendment held at the Resurrection Lutheran Church in Saginaw, both sides agreed that the amendment would go much further than defining marriage by also eliminating any government-sanctioned domestic partnership benefits. ‘I’m glad we could find common ground with the AFA, and I want to thank Gary Glenn for his willingness to be upfront on this point,’ said Wendy Howell, Campaign Manager for CFM.”
http://www.fairmichiganmajority.org/CFM/press_releases/6_24.htm
AFA-Michigan amicus brief to the Michigan Court of Appeals, January 2006:
“AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn said in a news release dated September 28, 2004, that the ‘Amendment will not stop any employer in the future from offering benefits to anyone the employer chooses, so long as it’s not on the basis of formally recognizing homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage.’
Glenn noted in the release, as does the Attorney General in his brief, that while the Amendment does prohibit a government employer from granting benefits to employees on the basis of recognizing same-sex relationships as being equal or similar to marriage, the Amendment would not block government employees involved in such relationships from receiving benefits offered as part of a more broadly-based plan available to all employees ““ that is, a benefits plan not based in any way on recognizing same-sex relationships.
‘A government employer could (constitutionally) adopt an “anything goes” policy,’ Glenn explained in the release, ‘allowing employees to add anyone they wish to their health care coverage — a sick relative, a neighbor, or even their homosexual partner — so long as the offer is available to all employees and not only to those involved in a homosexual relationship.’ “
http://www.afamichigan.org/FINAL.AMICUS.BRIEF.pdf
Detroit Free Press, Sept. 13, 2004, by Dawson Bell:
“Q: What about employee benefits accorded to domestic partners and their dependents by some municipalities and public universities?
A: Proponents and opponents of the amendment say they would be prohibited to the extent they mimic benefits for married employees. Opponents argue that an unspecified number of children would be unjustly deprived of health care in the process. Proponents say they believe the number would be small and that alternative coverage could be made available.”
I’m scratching my head trying to figure out the purpose of the three above comments by Gary Glenn, and the only conclusion I can reach is that they are intended to justify the use of the Michigan amendment to deny health insurance benefits to families he doesn’t like. Is this meant to convince us that his organization doesn’t intend to harm our families?
A Michigan judge did issue an opinion stating that health insurance is not a benefit of marriage, it is a benefit of employment, but that has not stopped organizations like the AFA from making these sorts of arguments about “homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage.”
As for the citation in his first comment, does Mr. Glenn not recognize this as tongue-in-cheek? I could say exactly the same thing in reference to our own Attorney General: “I’m happy to find common ground with Bob McDonnell in light of his admission at a public forum on August 1 that the Marshall/Newman amendment is in fact a significant extension beyond existing law in prohibiting the recognition of legal rights for all unmarried couples in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We thank him for his willingness to finally be upfront about this issue and for retracting his previous statements.”
News release forthcoming (just kidding, folks).