Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeLegislators aim to take away benefits
Passing of Proposal 2 causes rift between government, unions
January 17, 2005 —
After the outcome of the elections in November, some of the approved initiatives are continuing to be hot button issues, with their effects being felt here on campus.
One of these initiatives was Proposal 2, which outlawed same-sex marriage in the state of Michigan but is continuing to spark controversy today.
Proposal 2 was passed by 58.6 percent of Michigan voters on Election Day. With the seemingly innocuous wording of amending the state Constitution so that "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," the ballot measure easily passed, aided by widespread support from statewide clergy.
While on the surface only banning same-sex marriage, recently lawmakers have come to interpret the ballot's passing as a reason to suspend partner benefits at the state level.
Before the election, gay-rights advocates warned that the enactment of Proposal 2 would lead to the eventual removal of domestic partner benefits in the state, while most supporters of Proposal 2 indicated a willingness only to preserve marriage as between men and women.
If recent events are any indicator, then the former group has the right to feel vindicated in their preelection rhetoric.
Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm, who opposed Proposal 2, decided on Thursday, Dec. 2 that the passage of Proposal 2 meant that the state of Michigan giving same-sex partner benefits was in direct violation of the measure.
Granholm, whose administration installed these domestic partner benefits only two months prior, then decided to withdraw same-sex partner benefits from proposed state contracts, which cover most unionized state employees, including those employed by Saginaw Valley State University. The very next day, Granholm defended her actions as justifiable, with a statement declaring, "The assertion that [the Granholm Administration] has removed these benefits is just plain wrong."
The contracts, which were previously approved by the state's union workers, bring up important questions.
Union activists are furious over what they consider a reneging of the approved contract by the state administration.
"It's a contract and an agreement is an agreement," United Auto Workers lobbyist Alan Kilar said about this issue.
But conservative activists instead argue that removing same-sex benefits was justified by the passage of Proposal 2.
And some conservative activists have begun to take the step from political action to contacting Attorney General Mike Cox about possible eliminations of domestic benefits.
"It's now part of the constitution, so it's now an issue of law enforcement," said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of America.
Another wrinkle has emerged from the question of whether same-sex partner benefits should be applied to state universities. Even though state-supported universities, such as SVSU, are typically thought of as being appendages of the state government, some of the other state universities are threatening to defy the Governor's rejection of state funding for same-sex partnerships.
Both the University of Michigan and Wayne State University have indicated that they will potentially not honor Governor Granholm's ruling that prevents state contracts from giving same-sex partner benefits.
U-M's Dean of the Social Work Program, Paula Allen-Meares, issued a statement on the University's Social Work Web page indicating hers, as well as the University's support, saying "the University leadership has pledged to vigorously defend same-sex domestic partnership benefits."
Both universities are claiming that under the Michigan Constitution, state universities are autonomous institutions, and therefore exempt from enforcement of the new constitutional amendment.
To find out how this issue directly affects SVSU faculty, and what the University Administration plans to do about it, read the Jan. 31 edition of the Valley Vanguard.