MoveOn joins the fight to protect domestic partner benefits at Michigan universities

Remember how I was telling you a little while ago that an amendment was added to an education spending bill by Republicans in the Michigan House that would penalize universities that offer benefits to the domestic partners of their employees? Well, the folks at MoveOn have taken notice, and they’ve begun organizing, in hopes of derailing the amendment in the Michigan Senate. Following is the email they’ve begun circulating. Please share it with your friends.

The Michigan House Republicans recently approved an amendment to the House bill on education funding written by Rep. David Agema. The amendment proposes that the state subtract 5 percent from the state funding of any university that offers health insurance coverage for employees who live with another adult outside of marriage.

During a time where public education operates under increasingly difficult financial constraints, ideologically driven legislations have even less of a place in educational policy than ever. The amendment violates the autonomy of public universities and is thus a direct attack on academic freedom.

Moreover, the amendment’s clear intent to divide the academic community is deeply immoral. Targeting unmarried couples, and by intent particularly gay and lesbian families, at a time where every public poll shows significant majority support for civil unions flies in the face of the country’s commitment to equality. Americans, as a rule, do not want the government to tell them how to conduct their private lives.

Middle-class families already suffer from the rising cost of college tuition. If the amendment passes, the loss of funds may well contribute to an even steeper rise, thus penalizing all Michigan families in the interest of an obsolete sexual morality Americans have rejected resoundingly.

The bill still needs to be reconciled with the Senate version, and we still have a chance to stop this nasty piece of legislation. That’s why I created a petition to the Michigan State House, the Michigan State Senate and Governor Rick Snyder, which says:

“David Agema’s amendment penalizing universities over same-sex benefits violates the universities’ budgetary autonomy, interferes with their academic freedom, and penalizes all unmarried couples, particularly those who are not allowed to marry in the first place. Any further cuts in state funding will directly harm Michigan students and their families. Please ensure that the reconciliation process eliminates this hate-driven legislation.”

Will you sign the petition? Click here to add your name, and then pass it along to your friends.


–Stella Sunstein

And let’s not forget that this is only the most egregious part of terrible piece of legislation that would see public education further defunded across our state at every level, as our spending on incarceration grows. And, even more shameful, these proposed Republican cuts to public education are taking place at a time when Michigan’s tax revenues are actually increasing… Is this really how we want to “reinvent” Michigan? Do we want to live in a state where public education is less a priority than incarceration? Do we want to live in a state where our great institutions of higher learning are coerced into singling out their gay employees for punitive treatment? Is this the new Michigan we thought that we were getting when we chose to elect Rick Snyder?

This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Michigan, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. EOS
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    They are not targeting homosexuals, but all unmarried couples. We have serious budget problems. Our tax dollars for education should be spent in the classrooms, not on providing marriage benefits to unmarried couples. Some one should tell MoveOn and the University of Michigan that the people of Michigan voted on this ballot issue years ago.

  2. Brainless
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Jesus EOS, how’s your knee?

  3. Edward
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    If you don’t think this is a backhanded way of getting back at the gay, after failing to strip them of their domestic partner benefits through other legislative means, EOS, you’re even dumber than I thought you were.

  4. Glen S.
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Meanwhile, across Lake Michigan …

  5. EOS
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    My guess is that there are a hundred heterosexual couples affected for every homosexual pair. The legislative process didn’t fail. The Attorney General resides in the executive branch.

  6. Glen S.
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    If we lived in a more enlightened and civilized country, we’d already have a single-payer system of providing healthcare — so access to care for individuals and their families would not be dependent on one’s employer.

    Unfortunately, we don’t. And so, most people who are neither old enough to be eligible for Medicare, nor poor enough for Medicaid, still must depend on having access to health insurance through their employers.

    Therefore, I can’t imagine any logical (or moral) reason why some workers’ partner should be covered, while some others’ (gay, straight or otherwise) should not — unless the aim is to intentionally create a form of “second-class citizenship” for *certain* individuals or groups …

    All of this bullshit about how this is really all “just about the budget” is just a smokescreen for the kind of blatant bigotry that will, in a couple of decades, look as shockingly archaic as “Jim Crow” does today.

  7. Andy Cameron
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    “My guess is that there are a hundred heterosexual couples affected for every homosexual pair.”

    Your guesses aren’t useful. If you’re going to argue that these programs are costing huge amounts of money due to hundred of unmarried hetero couples getting improper coverage you should back it up with data.

  8. EOS
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    100:1 is the ratio, not the total. The University does not release numbers of homosexuals employed to my knowledge. Homosexuals make up less than two percent of the total population in the U.S. and suggesting that 50% are in a committed relationship is generous.

  9. Suzie
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    “The amendment proposes that the state subtract 5 percent from the state funding of any university that offers health insurance coverage for employees who live with another adult outside of marriage.”
    Wow, that’s disgusting. Is their summary accurate? It sounds like it’s not just impacting health coverage for spouses / unmarried couples – it’s coverage for the actual employees themselves. So if you live with your sister, parents, or partner (gay or straight, whatever), then either go without health care, or cause the university to lose money.

    Still, though, that insanity aside, what could heterosexual couples do if they want to get benefits covered? Get married.

    So, then, what should gay/lesbian couples do if they want to get benefits covered? Oh, wait. Right.

  10. Andy Cameron
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    :) Well duh, of course that was a ratio (perhaps you were thrown b/c I left an ‘s’ off hundreds). Do you have data on the total number of unmarried individuals covered in these programs, and the total cost of these programs to the institutions?

    And please enlighten us on the relevance of this: “Homosexuals make up less than two percent of the total population in the U.S. and suggesting that 50% are in a committed relationship is generous.”

    Even if these are near accurate, how does that make your argument?

  11. Glen S.
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    This discussion of numbers, ratios etc., is a distraction that only serves to confuse the issue.

    In reality, this is very simple:

    Even if this ends up applying to only ONE employee, it still isn’t right to deny benefits that are equally available to that person’s peers who are comparable in terms of job category, length of service, etc.

    I’m sure one could argue that we could save the State of ton of money by denying benefits to spouses in mixed-race marriages, or to those who marry non-Christians, but I’m guessing neither idea would gain much political traction. (Although, these days, who knows?)

  12. Andy Cameron
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Glen, I absolutely agree (and like most here support marriage equality), I just wanted to undress the other “argument” that was advanced. Unfortunately the bigots got enough voters out in 2004 to make this difficult.

  13. John Galt
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    EOS is absolutely right! The University of Michigan needs to turn over the names of all its gay employees! We should FOIA the university!

    Is there a genetic test for gay, or do we have to parade beautiful women by them while strapped to penile blood flow meters?

  14. Andy C 1313
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    I agree, John!

    Mark, can you bring over those penile blood flow meters you borrowed last month?

  15. EOS
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 4:56 am | Permalink

    I support marriage, as do the majority of voters – one man and one woman. There is no segment of our population that is denied the opportunity to marry. But to redefine the institution of marriage and label anyone who doesn’t embrace your “redefinition” as bigoted is disingenuous, at best. It’s not as if homosexual partners are at home raising the couple’s biological offspring.

  16. Edward
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    And we all know that the only legitimate offspring are “biological” offspring. Adopted kids aren’t really kids at all. Same goes for offspring of one partner. Unless you’re the offspring of both parents, you’re more of a pet.

  17. EOS
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    Unless you’re the offspring of both parents you’re far more likely to suffer abuse, both physical and sexual. It is in the best interests of the children and society as a whole to encourage the biological family to stay intact.

  18. Andy Cameron
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    “Unless you’re the offspring of both parents you’re far more likely to suffer abuse, both physical and sexual.”

    Please cite a source for this assertion.

    Also, EOS, do you think gay couples should be legally allowed to adopt a child?

  19. EOS
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Why don’t you google it yourself. There are literally thousands of studies that have shown this.

    No, I don’t think homosexual couples should be legally allowed to adopt children. Children do best when they are raised in a family with both a mother and a father.

  20. Andy Cameron
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    “Literally thousands.” LOL! Yes, I’m sure there are. The Family Research Council, et al are a pretty busy group of fake Christian bigots.

    Thanks for answering the question about adoption. That really tells us a lot about your values.

  21. EOS
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    A ton of research has revealed that youths in homes with non-related parent figures are at substantially higher risk of abuse by parents than children living in homes with two natural parents.

    M. Daly and M. Wilson, Child abuse and other risks of not living with both parents, Ethology and Sociobiology 6 (1985), pp. 197–210

    S.L. Hofferth and K.G. Anderson, Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for parental investment, Journal of Marriage and the Family 65 (2003), pp. 213–232.

    W. MacDonald and A. DeMaris, Parenting stepchildren and biological children: The effects of stepparent’s gender and new biological children, Journal of Family Issues 17 (1996), pp. 5–25

    D. Popenoe, Stepfamilies: A biosocial perspective. In: A. Booth and J. Dunn, Editors, Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not?, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1994), pp. 42–64

    Coohey, The role of friends, in-laws, and other kin in father–perpetrated child physical abuse, Child Welfare 79 (4) (2000), pp. 373–402

    Starr, A research-based approach to the prediction of child abuse. In: R.H.J. Starr, Editor, Child abuse prediction: Policy implications, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA (1982), pp. 105–134

    Sherrod, S. O’Connor, P.M. Vietze and W.A. Altemeier, Child health and maltreatment, Child Development 55 (1984), pp. 1174–1183

    M. Daly and M. Wilson, The truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian view of parental love, Yale University Press, New Haven (1988).

    My values and views on adoption are consistent with current and past state laws.

  22. Glen S.
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    EOS, the research you have provided finally has me convinced!

    Obviously, “the gays” should not be allowed to adopt, nor should they be entitled to any of the other ordinary, everyday rights and benefits (such as tax advantages, and employer-sponsored healthcare) that their straight counterparts take for granted.

    In fact, I now realize that the U.S. would probably be better off if *certain people* responsible for perpetrating the “homosexual agenda” were all just rounded up and deported — but preferably to someplace warm, like the south of France (or perhaps Tuscany?), where they could spend their remaining years pondering their error of their immoral ways … in between sunning at the beach, clubbing, and throwing FABULOUS dinner parties … all the while having to endure the indignity of receiving generous social-welfare benefits, and state-sponsored healthcare.

  23. EOS
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Do whatever you want Glen. But when you promote homosexual activity as being somehow virtuous, I’ll respond with the facts.

  24. Andy C 1313
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Damn, Glen, you make inequality sound awesome! I think I’ll choose to be gay now.

    EOS, do you think it would be better for a child to be adopted into a family with gay parents, or to be abused or neglected in a foster home? Regardless of your rigid ideology this is sometimes the choice in the real world.

    I would appreciate an answer to this specific question: would prefer a child to have two loving gay parents, or two abusive straight parents?

  25. Mr. X
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Help! Glen is trying to turn me gay!

    As for orphans, I agree that they should be put to sleep as they will never achieve the greatness biological children.

  26. Glen S.
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    @ EOS.

    You talk about “activity.”

    I talk about “people.”

    Fundamentally, I think that explains our difference of opinion.

  27. EOS
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    My preference is for loving parents over abusers, biological parents over non-biological, two parents over one, and placement in a home with a loving gay parent only under extreme circumstances with no other options. Only one of the homosexuals can be the legal parent in Michigan.

  28. EOS
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink


    That’s because you obtain your identity from your sexual preference and I identify as a child of an awesome God who gives us guidelines for our benefit.

  29. Andy Cameron
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    “sexual preference”, “child of an awesome god”

    It’s sad that you miss the entire point of your religion.

  30. kjc
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    more evil than awesome i’d say, per your descriptions.

  31. Posted May 18, 2011 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Wow, god’s a bigot, too.

  32. notoneofthecoolkids
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    EOS is getting a hard on from all this attention! Stop giving it too him!

  33. Glen S.
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    @ EOS

    Unlike some others here, I don’t consider you a “troll.” While I generally end up disagreeing with most everything you say (write), I sense an earnest nature to your comments, and presume you enjoy testing the limits of opinion on this mostly liberal blog.

    That said, I’m glad you consider yourself a “child of an awesome God who gives (you) guidelines for (your) benefit.” In all seriousness, I absolutely support your right to live according to your deeply-held values, and wish you all the best.

    But what I can’t, for the life of me, understand is why people like you can’t just be content to live according to your own values … but, rather, feel compelled to try to force everybody else to live that way, too.

    Frankly, you don’t know the first thing about me, and you certainly have no right to presume anything about me … not least of which is how I “identify” myself, or my “sexual preference.” In fact, if you actually knew me, you’d realize what a truly ridiculous statement that was …

    In my experience, most people are simply too complex to be “defined,” and even if they could, most certainly can’t be defined by a particular characteristic or attribute, let alone a particular “sexual act.” We all play multiple roles at multiple stages of our lives — as children, students, workers, friends, parents, partners, neighbors, elders, etc. Over the course of a full, dynamic life, the way we express ourselves sexually is certainly an important part of our identity — but by no means the total picture.

    In general, I believe that what consenting adults do in private is none of my business. On the other hand, I think we all should strive to make sure that the benefits and and responsibilities that come with being a member of any community — be it as a citizen, employee, consumer, etc. — should be as equal as possible.

    If, by virtue of employment, *some* individuals are eligible to choose another consenting adult, and to designate that person as a “spouse” who is eligible to share access to health insurance coverage provided as a benefit of their employment — I fail to see how it is in the best interest of the individual, the employer, or society at large to decide that some partners are “acceptable,” while others are not.

  34. EOS
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    You wrote, “But what I can’t, for the life of me, understand is why people like you can’t just be content to live according to your own values … but, rather, feel compelled to try to force everybody else to live that way, too.”

    I am content to live my life by my own values, which coincide with the current culture. Others, such as yourself, are attempting to change the values by redefining issues such as “marriage”, “equal rights”, and “sin/virtue”. I’m merely speaking/writing in defense of the status quo, while you’re promoting an alternative agenda. You are the one rocking the boat and pushing the limits.

    Homosexual partners have never been afforded marriage benefits. Supporting and preserving the family as the foundational basis of our culture is of benefit to the majority. Nothing is gained by the society at large from affirming homosexual relationships and many detrimental factors are averted by discouraging such relationships. Public health, economic growth, and societal stability result from heterosexual coupling and are therefore encouraged by employers.

    Until you come to the realization that you, too, are a child of an awesome God you will always be seeking affirmation and never finding fulfillment. If you love Him, you will obey His commands, and you will live for an eternity. I do know that you are an intelligent, thoughtful individual and hope that you might consider using your God-given gifts in accord with His values.

  35. Glen S.
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    “Homosexual partners have never been afforded marriage benefits.” *, **, ***

    * = Except in the following, which have full marriage equality:

    Mexico (Mexico City)
    South Africa
    District of Columbia
    New Hampshire

    ** = Except for the following, which do not perform same-sex marriages, but recognize those performed in other territories:


    *** = Except for the following, which have Civil Unions which confer all (or nearly all) of the benefits of marriage.

    Czech Republic
    Isle of Man
    New Zealand
    United Kingdom


  36. EOS
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    I don’t see Michigan or the USA on your list.

  37. Andy Cameron
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    I think the future is going to be a really scary place for Mr. EOS.

  38. EOS
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    My future is settled, my destination is secure. Haven’t you seen the billboards or newspaper ads? It could be a soon as 6P this Saturday May 21. O.K. I don’t think this prediction is likely to be true. No one knows the date or time. But we aren’t promised tomorrow either. And if the ground starts shaking really hard, grab a Bible and read quick!

  39. Ricky
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    EOS…What are the timing issues involved with being saved so I can go to heaven? Will God permit last minute converts to enter the pearly gates?
    I’ll keep my bible close by this saturday just in case.

  40. Andy Cameron
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Times they are a changin’…

  41. kjc
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    EOS, I grew up in a Christian family, but I swear you have really helped to finally unconvert me. How many unconverts do you have??? (you’re getting a wrist slap from the big guy on sat.)

  42. EOS
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:47 am | Permalink


    Good questions. The Bible says the last will be first and the first will be last. If you time it just right, you can go to the head of the line. However, there’s always the possibility that you’ll get hit by a Mack truck, so it’s better to be prepared. I personally don’t care where I am in the line so long as I am in.

    Last minute converts can enter the pearly gates. Jesus told the thief on the cross next to him that he would be in paradise that same day. However, sincerity is a necessity and not just being sincerely afraid of hell. Hope this helps.

  43. EOS
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:53 am | Permalink


    I think your mistaken in not giving the devil his due.

  44. kjc
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    oh i am giving the devil his due. precisely that.

  45. Meta
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    The Bible condones polygamy. Do polygamous marriages produce well-adjusted children, EOS?

  46. EOS
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    The Bible records the historical fact that polygamy was once the norm. Many of the giants in the faith were born into polygamous families. I don’t think it would work today, and since we are told to obey the civilian authorities, it is not allowed.

  47. cmadler
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    “…we are told to obey the civilian authorities…”

    So, if civilian authorities allow polygamy, does that make it acceptable?

    How far does this obedience to civilian authorities extend? If “civilian authorities” define marriage — for their purposes, without requiring any religious institutions to recognize or conduct such marriages — as between any two (or for that matter, any number) of consenting adults, does that make it acceptable?

  48. kjc
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    lol. stop torturing EOS with logic.

  49. EOS
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Civilian authority is legitimate only so far as it doesn’t infringe on our obedience to God’s will. Gambling and abortion are both legal. To a Christian, neither is acceptable. Much of what is acceptable to a secular society is condemnable in God’s eyes. We don’t have to participate, or affirm, and shouldn’t have to pay for it. And we always have the right to stand up on a soapbox and advocate different values.

  50. Kim
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Surely you don’t put civilian authority over that of the Bible, EOS!

    Speaking of the Bible, what do you make of this passage?

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

  51. Brainless
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    Wow, I really can’t even read this POS blog any more. I can’t believe any of you talk to this asshole and indulge his idiotic ramblings.

    Although, I suppose it gives some insight into how these POS state got into this POS condition. Sadly, scared little people just love their superstitions, don’t they?

  52. Jim
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    Along with the poll cited by Andy Cameron, a new Gallup poll also shows that a majority of Americans support the right of same sex couples to marry. That makes four major polls since March showing that 51-53% of Americans support marriage equality.

  53. EOS
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    60 -70% of voters nationwide have a different opinion.

  54. Jim
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Wait, Mark, is this a Turing test?
    I’ll admit, your trollbots have had me going for years now.

  55. Peter Larson
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    Wait. Does this mean that 60 to 70% of voters have a differing opinion on whether 51-53%?percent of Americans support marriage equality?

    I read that more than half of Americans believe in ghosts.

  56. Peter Larson
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    In fact, the problem has only gotten worse:

    Assuming that the Americans who believe in ghosts are also Christian, it has always been interesting to me that the two can coexist. Christianity allows for no spiritual presence on earth after death. Similarly, Christians also should not believe in space aliens, yet many I have met do.

    Let us pray to Jesus that the rapture actually happens so that he can take all of these assholes away.

  57. Kim
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    EOS, why didn’t you respond to my question about selling people into slavery?

  58. Peter Larson
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Slavery is just the free market at work.

  59. EOS
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 11:56 am | Permalink


    No, the Bible always trumps civilian authority.

    About the passage? I like the NLT version. Good choice. The rules were for a particular time in History. If you read the whole Book, you will understand that descriptions of events and rules in the past no longer pertain today. I didn’t respond because you’ve asked similar questions in the past and the answer hasn’t changed.

  60. MCS
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    The bible does not trump civilian authority, and taking it literally is bunk. It’s a book of stories, allegories, etc. written by a lot of people over a long period of time. But some people need the comfort that having an idealized, untouchable “source” brings them, so they believe it’s the end-all, be-all.

  61. Fred Bot
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    This is for you, Kim.

  62. Brainless
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:01 am | Permalink



    “The Bible is the inerrant word of God.”

    “Except when it’s not.”

    Fraud. Hypocrite. Loser.

  63. Nancy Boy
    Posted December 8, 2011 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    Republicans who control the Michigan Senate have approved bills aimed at blocking the offering of taxpayer-paid health insurance to domestic partners living with some public employees.

    The main bill in the package passed by a 27-9 vote Wednesday, with only Democrats in opposition. It returns with changes to the House, which approved the bill earlier this year.

    The legislation would prohibit some public employers from extending health benefits to unmarried partners of employees, whether they are of the same sex or opposite sex. It would apply to public schools, local governments and some state employees.

    It would not apply to public universities, which have constitutional power to determine their own policies.

    Republicans say the measure would save money. Opponents say public employers should be able to determine their own policies.

  64. K2
    Posted December 8, 2011 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    The Republicans made an exception for universities, no doubt because that’s where most of the criticism was coming from. My hope is that they’re not so easily bought off. I’ll be pissed if the professors at UM don’t continue to fight this thing on behalf of all of the other gay people working for the state. Hopefully they’re smart enough to know that, if the Republicans get this though, they’ll come back again later on, looking to expand it. They won’t stop until sodomy is a jailable offense.

2 Trackbacks

  1. […] leaders that proposed bills to penalize universities for pursuing embryonic stem cell research and offering benefits to the unmarried partners of employees are “unconstitutional and […]

  2. […] Seattle. But there were so many bills that kept being introduced that really targeted our family. The one about benefits for same-sex families was particularly mean-spirited, and it was significant for us because we were covered through U-M. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative King Kong