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

[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?