remember all those marriage protection amendments?

[acroyear]

You know, the ones where the proponents insisted verbally that the amendment didn't mean that same sex couples that get private contractual agreements for benefits would have their rights to such contracts and benefits slashed?

And remember how we read them as saying EXACTLY that - that the text was precisely the type that would void such contracts and give gay couples absolutely no rights at all.

And they insisted NO, we wouldn't want to do something like that, we just want to protect marriage.

Well, the courts have finally had their say, and we were right.

Gay couples are fucked.

As are their children.

No health care benefits even if the company wants to give them, no visitation rights in a hospital, no beneficiary agreements for stocks and insurance, no joint mortgages, nothing.  not even a car loan co-signing.

In the state of Michigan, if these contracts involve a gay couple they are as of now null and void.

The religious right assholes just got their wish - being gay means being a second class citizen in that state forever.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Michigan Partnership Benefits Killed by Court:

In a long-awaited and very disappointing ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that any partnership benefits granted to gay couples, even those as part of negotiated union agreements, are unconstitutional under the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposal 2, passed in 2004. After the passage of that amendment, the attorney general ruled that a state contract that included such benefits was illegal and that ruling was challenged on behalf of several cities and public universities in the state.

The district court ruled that Proposal 2 did not affect such benefits, but that was overturned by the appeals court and the supreme court upheld the appeals court ruling. The tragic irony of this is that despite the "save the children" rhetoric from the anti-gay crowd, the first people affected by this ruling will be the children of gay couples who may lose health care and other protections as a result.

What makes me pissed is this exact same text passed in Virginia and no matter how hard I tried to explain that this would happen, I still couldn't get my mother passed the "but it's protecting marriage" bullshit.

She voted for it here.

And REALLY pissed me off.

And this is why.

You give a community an anonymous way to show themselves as utter bigots and they will do exactly that.  The churches of the religious right today are utterly founded on principles bigotry and hatred.

And yes, I WILL hate them back.

Comments

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Course, these are the same people that elected Kwame Kilpatrick, so I wouldn't expect much intelligence in that state.

But, forever is a real long time. I doubt that it will be that long. There will be a time when we will laugh at how silly some of these things are. Eventually, the bigots will die off and more accepting people will be there to pick up the pieces.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

You're conflating the voters of Detroit with the voters of the entire state?

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

This was a highly disappointing and frightening decision. When are people going to grow up and stop being scared of the "not us" whoever they may be - gays, pagans, foreigners, etc.?

[dashrippington.livejournal.com]

I wish I knew WHAT they were trying to protect marriage FROM. I mean... I have no religion... and my wife and I were not married in a church... is MY marriage ANY less valid than those that do have religion and were married in a church? NO it is not!

And honestly... look at the divorce rate... are they trying to "protect" marriage from people getting a divorce? NOT going to happen. Hell... there are gay couples everywhere that are more committed to each other than ANY religious right asshat that kisses his wife goodbye in the morning only to shack up with a hooker on their lunch break. These couples WANT to stay together... but NO! Just because the Bible Says so is no longer a valid argument in this day and age.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

The divorce rate is higher in the southern "Bible Belt" states. What does that tell you they need protection from...?

[3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com]

While I wholeheartedly agree with your frustration and agitation, I don't necessarily agree with exclusively blaming "the church" or all churches. The churches have borne the proxy of this "marriage definition" debacle because they are the patsy set up to make this look like it's a "definition by God", but truly this is the special lobbyists who represent those who would lose money/power.

This is as much to do with the social security administration and insurance industry as anyone. They don't want to pay spousal benefits to any spouses, let alone same-sex ones. That's money out of their pockets. Of course, that doesn't mean that the SAME outcome can't be achieved, through legal means. All it really affects is that it is no longer the de facto outcome for a lack of planning. An effective estate planning attorney can given medical decision making powers (which thereby includes visitations), inheritance distributions, abilities to manage finances, etc. with a few relatively simple documents. Really, the biggest group this really benefits are those lawyers.

In terms of state laws regarding buying mortgages and co-signing loans... is that really the case? I truly thought that anyone could cosign (or jointly sign) for anyone, unless there are individual company policies governing such things. That may be my own ignorance, however.

I wholeheartedly agree with your anger and irritation. The religious community's fundamentalists (whether that's Muslim, Christin, etc.) are out of control and really need to be made accountable for outcomes of their meager opinions. That's why I believe we should TAX ALL CHURCHES as Corporations! While the legitimate faith-based operations could continue to worship with little interruption, it would take the incentive out of every hate-based-cult (Jim Jones? Jerry Fallwell? Pat Robertson? Ted Haggart? Osama BinLaden? I could go on, but that's enough for now) from flouting their opinions in a legal attempt to assemble cults, start riots and spread hate agendas. Raised Christian, and open to other opinions, I despise that the religion I had associated myself with has been bastardized into the exact opposite of the "love your brother" mentality. These modern-day "armchair judges" will be judged, at least if anyone believes their own bibles.

I am wondering -- when will we hear from the Fundamentalist Buddhists? Kind of hard to strive for the middle path when you keep leaning obscenely to the right -- but it brings new meaning to "If you see the Buddha on the road..."

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

it has nothing to do with that.

if it did, then the timing of these amendments would have been much earlier, rather than specifically the 2004 or 2006 election where it would make a turnout difference by bringing the closet bigot to the polls to "vote Republican".

The insurance companies ARE supporting gay rights - because its still more premiums coming in even if there's the chance for more payments going out - its risk assessment and the statistics show that a couple is a couple and the risks are the same, so more power to 'em - they bring in money.

same with mortgage lenders.

these are all contracts that the corporations did NOT have to approve of. but they did. supporting gay rights is simply good business.

SSA is irrelevant. Clinton saw to that with the "marriage protection act" that said that your rights with the federal government are different depending on your state, in absolutely utter violation of the 9th amendment.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the SAME outcome can't be achieved, through legal means. All it really affects is that it is no longer the de facto outcome for a lack of planning. An effective estate planning attorney can given medical decision making powers (which thereby includes visitations), inheritance distributions, abilities to manage finances, etc. with a few relatively simple documents.

you didn't read it did you.

your read is WRONG.

the amendments MAKE THOSE SIMPLE DOCUMENTS NULL AND VOID. They totally prohibit corporations from supporting those legal contracts.

that's EXACTLY what the Michigan Supreme Court just determined - all of those binding contracts between that couple (and their children) are null and void as of today.

[3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com]

[obligatory "I am not a lawyer" here]

How can that possibly be true? I will go so far as to say that I firmly believe your claim is wrong. Let me try to explain why I believe that before you slap me again. *g*

I am able to name ANYONE for ANY REASON to make my medical decisions for me if I am incapacitated. That is called an "Advance Directive" and it has nothing to do with my relationship with the individuals I name.

Likewise I am able to give ANYONE for ANY REASON legal authority to represent my financial affairs if I so choose. That document is called "Durable Power of Attorney". That person could be my trusted stockbroker, my clergy, my close friend or any scumwad telemarketer who I let talk me into it. [edit: Slight definition update -- the "Durable Power of Attorney" is one of a family of "Power of Attorney" documents. There are specific Powers of Attorney you can attribute for specific tasks -- such as incapacitation (which requires court definition) and specific to real estate, etc. A "Durable Power of Attorney" says an individual for any reason can handle my finances, so it is a rather air-tight and compelling document issuing the claims I stated in the paragraph previously.]

I am able to name ANYONE for ANY REASON to be my legal beneficiary if I die. That is called a "Last Will and Testament" (or various instruments known as "Trusts") and likewise has nothing to do with spousal rights or relations. I can leave my entire estate to a charity, or to a pet, or my neighbor, or my neighbor's pet's charity. Likewise, I am entitled to EXCLUDE my spouse, my parents, my children or my siblings. It might be contested in court, but that is the reason for having this documents in the first place. If I am competent, I get to name those individuals I wish to include and exclude unless it can be proven it was under duress or other legal claim that the Will was subversive.

There is not ONE THING that would render any of those specifically crafted legal documents null and void through this decision. The only thing it renders null and void is their civil union or marriage, and the rights and privileges that are assumed as if you are married. It's the defacto response if you leave no instructions that were removed, NOT the careful legal documents you are now forced to put into place. If you had them before, they still stand. If you don't have any such documents, NOW you are forced to pay a lawyer to draft for you because you no longer are entitled due to the state's myopic view on the definition of a couple.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Yes, I'm probably reading too much into the MI wording based on the Virginia text. As I wrote elsewhere - I was reading the Virginia version of the text into this which IS written in such a way that the very contracts you describe here might no validity in this state's courts.

"Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

It's questionable. The wording may actually permit the state to refuse to recognize some aspects of a Trust if it implies a "marriage-like" partnership.

From an editorial in the Post:

Moreover, Virginia is the only state to forbid even private companies, unless self-insured, from extending health insurance benefits to unmarried couples. That provision affects cohabiting straights but works a far greater hardship on gay couples, who cannot marry.

Those steps, however, impinge on the power of third parties (corporations and the government) to recognize gay couples. In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts. If a gay Californian was hit by a bus in Arlington, her medical power of attorney might be worthless there. "Sorry," the hospital might have to say to her frantic partner, "your contract means nothing here. Now leave before we call security."

Now, this is broad enough and specific enough that it may be a violation of The Contract Clause (Article 1) and thus actionable in federal court, but it needs a test case first and that is expensive...

[3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com]

I hear what you are saying, and I cringe at the ridiculousness of the reasons behind their attempting to dismantle legal documents, however -- I will one more time say "carefully crafted legal documents". If there is no reference to "my husband/wife/spouse" and simply naming the individual by their name, or as their "friend" with the name, then I firmly believe the document(s) can not be contested by the grounds of that specific legislation. There simply is no precedent to render these nearly universally accepted documents. Not even with the state legislators decrying their omnipotent infallibility.

Then again, let McCain become President in '08, and we will have a Federal Supreme Court which won't overturn Virginia/Michigan's stupefying attempt to legislate shamelessly discriminatory intollerance.

Let me put it this way...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

On paragraph 1, I hope you're right, and when someone finally has the need and the will to challenge it, I'll contribute to the legal fund.

On paragraph 2? *shudder*

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Just because you don't put your intentions in writing as part of the document, doesn't mean they don't exist. If you are part of a same sex couple, and the document provides a benefit of marriage, the court can find, reasonably that it meets the terms laid out in the law. The law isn't reasonable, but that's not the point, the document meets the definition in the law. The court can't find the constitution unconstitutional.

And, I said the same things when the ammendment was proposed. It says "no contract", and I want to know, who gets the car, who gets the payments already made? The contract can be ruled null and void, and all that's left is letting the court split up the stuff the way it says the stuff should be.

[3fingeredsalute.livejournal.com]

If the proper legal documents are in place, the court has no say in who gets what. It is predetermined by your document of wishes.

The legally defined definition of "spouse" applies to a man and a woman in these cases. Spouses are given certain rights. Those SAME rights can be duplicated and never revoked with proper legal documents which should have been redundant, but never really are.

The best way to put this is, EVERYONE should have legal documents in place. Most of us depend on the definition of what will happen if we do nothing. We can NOT do nothing in a society who swings like a pendulum (or a corpse on a hangman's noose) to the will of public opinion.

Your "will", as you put it, MUST be expressed in a well-crafted legal document if you are a same-sex couple, as it stands now. Perhaps you are agreeing with me, but it sounded like you might not be. "No contract" means by virtue of marriage. It does not, whatsoever, imply all rights to that person do not exist outside of that definition.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

I think this is wrong. All it says is that the state cannot provide domestic partner benefits (although "the state" includes public universities and, somewhat surprisingly, requires the state not to comply with standard union contracts that include such benefits, so I am certainly not saying that this is not a big deal).

But it does not prohibit, e.g., Ford from continuing to provide benefits to domestic partners (of course, Ford must find a way to identify domestic partners other than "registered as DP under state law" in order to do so).

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

up to a point - depends on the interpretation of "state contract" - a contract WITH the state or a contract enforced by the laws WITHIN the state.

the trouble is it all comes down to enforcement - if one has a legal contract drawn up for hospital visitation rights and some religious nut in the hospital (or worse, your partner's mother who refuses to acknowledge that her child is gay), that contract is within the state.

This is the text: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

I easily read that as the state CAN exclude a contractual benefit between private citizens and companies if it decides it is recognizing a "similar union". If the state decides to not enforce a visitations rights document, they are within their grounds to do so as long as its because they think it is attempting "recognize a similar union"

they won the first battle - public employment. the second battle, private contracts, is likely next in line. when that court case gets up there, we'll see.

I hope I'm wrong. but i'm not holding my breath.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

Okay, so I was right that the decision did not decide the issue, but you're right that the language is not entirely clear (although I believe there is a canon of construction that says that laws that are not clear do not disrupt private contractual relationships. It comes up frequently in Contract Clause cases (Art. I, sec. 10), which I imagine would be implicated in a case challenging a private contract on the basis of this statute.).

Even if that canon did not apply, though, I would have a hard time applying it to a contract between Ford and its employee to provide his domestic partner with health insurance benefits. That's very different from a contract between two partners with regard to property rights or visitation rights.

Not that that resolves the issue, of course.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

BTW, the Ford example you describe - up until 2005 that very thing was illegal in Virginia.

Yes I agree that the contract clause may (eventually) have something to say about all of this, but that requires 1) a test case in the state, 2) a lot of money, and 3) a rights-respecting supreme court by the time the case gets up there.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Actually, you may be right in Michigan - I might be reading too much of Virginia's disgusting text into the law.

Here's Virginia: Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

That's worse, but as a court applying the Virginia law, I still wouldn't apply it to invalidate employment benefits. And I say that as someone who believes that the Michigan court interpreted the Michigan law correctly (or rather, that their hands were tied). A private contract between the couple is a much, much closer issue, especially under the Virginia law.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

a private contract is "or other legal status". I mean, that pretty much covers absoloutely everything.

[mandrakan.livejournal.com]

That's correct. What's unclear is the definition of "rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

Is that only necessary incidents of marriage (for example, barring a legal arrangement to the contrary, a spouse has inheritance rights and visitation rights), or does it include everything that firms choose to provide to spouses? For instance, I don't think any law requires a firm that provides health insurance to cover spouses (I could be wrong about this). Does the Virginia law mean that, if a firm chooses to cover spouses, it cannot cover anyone else? What if it doesn't provide benefits to spouses--then it would be okay to cover roommates, right?