Gov. Rick Snyder signs domestic partner benefits ban into law

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

"Same sex marriage" <------

[mr and mrs 187]

In a Republic we are guided by both the vote and the rule of law, not the will of a minority who want to redefine marriage and what a family entails.

it's no so minor anymore. and it's made up of gays and straights, dems and reps, believers and non-believers.

this is an issue of equality and soon the current federal non-recognition of gay marriage will be regarded as antiquated just jim crow laws are.

(wonder if there is a lil danno? hope he's not a gay!)

[Danno 1,228]

it's no so minor anymore. and it's made up of gays and straights, dems and reps, believers and non-believers.

this is an issue of equality and soon the current federal non-recognition of gay marriage will be regarded as antiquated just jim crow laws are.

(wonder if there is a lil danno? hope he's not a gay!)

Even if I were gay.. whats the point, many guys who are attracted to 15 yr old girls would not necessarily be for changing the the age limit for Marriage in their state.

As for the long term possibility of Doing away with any restrictions on who or how many can marry you could be right, as we are without question a nation in decline in most measurable ways.... that the Culture

is rotting goes hand and hand.

But for the near future, you might be surprised at some changes come next election cycle.

Just for a refresher course in the direct action for the defining of marriage amendments which have already take place.....

you can expect that will need updating before long.

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

is there some sort of legend for the above map?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yep. You see how the anti-gay agenda strategy works? Deny them marriage, then dismiss their relationships as not being sincere. And see all the schmucks who lap it up.

Vermont allows gay marriage and civil unions between heterosexual and homosexual couples and does not allow discrimination in benefits based on sexual orientation.

The issue as presented is not a gay issue, it addresses couples who are not married or in a civil union.

[mr and mrs 187]

is there some sort of legend for the above map?

i think the red indicates state governments that discriminate against gays, while the black indicate state-level discrimination against gays AND blacks.

Vermont allows gay marriage and civil unions between heterosexual and homosexual couples and does not allow discrimination in benefits based on sexual orientation.

with the passage of the marriage equality act in sept 2009, vermont no longer offers civil unions. woo!

The issue as presented is not a gay issue, it addresses couples who are not married or in a civil union.

i don't know as much about Michigan laws but domestic partnership is often a way that same-sex couples can gain access to some of the benefits they are denied in places where their relationships are not legally recognized. so while this legislation may not specifically be anti-gay, its consequences are certainly not good for unmarried same-sex couples. since in michigan they do not have the right to marry, as their straight counterparts do. in 2004 michigan voted to limit the definition of marriage to include only man/woman partners.

so it becomes an important gay issue, particularly of youre gay and live in Michigan. or if you believe in equality.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

i don't know as much about Michigan laws but domestic partnership is often a way that same-sex couples can gain access to some of the benefits they are denied in places where their relationships are not legally recognized. so while this legislation may not specifically be anti-gay, its consequences are certainly not good for unmarried same-sex couples. since in michigan they do not have the right to marry, as their straight counterparts do. in 2004 michigan voted to limit the definition of marriage to include only man/woman partners.

so it becomes an important gay issue, particularly of youre gay and live in Michigan. or if you believe in equality.

These benefits are for spouses or civil union partners. I could not care less if they are gay or straight, but to offer them to someone that has less than a contractural committment is preposterous.

If it is a problem for gays, then let them get gay marriage passed like we have here and in other states. But again this is not about marriage, homosexual or heterosexual, It is about giving benefits to people who are NOT married. So if I shack up with three girls do they all get benefits? There is no statutory limit on how many girls I can shack up with. What should be the statutory limit of insurance beneficiaries? One? 3? 48? Are you prepared to tell me how many people can live with me and how many I can get insurance for? This is just stupid.

Get married, get CU or GTFO!

[mr and mrs 187]

i agree. benefits should not be handed out willy-nilly.

but until there is marriage equality everywhere in the us, people who are not able to have a relationship that is recognized federally need to be able to have access to benefits.

where marriage or civil union is not an option, gtfo is not a solution. legitimate partners deserve equal treatment. we've got it figured out here new england (mostly) and new york. i dont have as much faith that other states will make marriage equality a priority any time soon.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

i agree. benefits should not be handed out willy-nilly.

but until there is marriage equality everywhere in the us, people who are not able to have a relationship that is recognized federally need to be able to have access to benefits.

where marriage or civil union is not an option, gtfo is not a solution. legitimate partners deserve equal treatment. we've got it figured out here new england (mostly) and new york. i dont have as much faith that other states will make marriage equality a priority any time soon.

There is no problem TO solve. Emloyers do not need to be providing insurance benefits to boyfriends and girlfriends. Boyfriends and girlfriends need to get their own insurance. How do you determine a "legitimate partner" Because they say so? How many legitimate partners can they have?

Boyfriends and girlfriends need to commit, or get their own insurance. If they are gay and cannot get married in that state...MOVE.

People need to take responsibility for themselves. Get your own insurance, move, commit to the relationship. Everyone else does not need to comply with their wishes.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

There is no problem TO solve. Emloyers do not need to be providing insurance benefits to boyfriends and girlfriends. Boyfriends and girlfriends need to get their own insurance. How do you determine a "legitimate partner" Because they say so? How many legitimate partners can they have?

Boyfriends and girlfriends need to commit, or get their own insurance. If they are gay and cannot get married in that state...MOVE.

People need to take responsibility for themselves. Get your own insurance, move, commit to the relationship. Everyone else does not need to comply with their wishes.

[Danno 1,228]

There is no problem TO solve. Emloyers do not need to be providing insurance benefits to boyfriends and girlfriends. Boyfriends and girlfriends need to get their own insurance. How do you determine a "legitimate partner" Because they say so? How many legitimate partners can they have?

Boyfriends and girlfriends need to commit, or get their own insurance. If they are gay and cannot get married in that state...MOVE.

People need to take responsibility for themselves. Get your own insurance, move, commit to the relationship. Everyone else does not need to comply with their wishes.

This stuff is so ripe for rip off it's not even funny.

You could claim a room mate and split the cost, you could -help a friend out by claiming he is your partner, who would not do that for a friend in need?

Shack-up relationship are less stable, if the couple split on good terms why would it be reported... why not let the person have the coverage?

It's hard to imagine a program that would temp more people... who are otherwise honest to rip-off the tax payer.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

This stuff is so ripe for rip off it's not even funny.

You could claim a room mate and split the cost, you could -help a friend out by claiming he is your partner, who would not do that for a friend in need?

Shack-up relationship are less stable, if the couple split on good terms why would it be reported... why not let the person have the coverage?

It's hard to imagine a program that would temp more people... who are otherwise honest to rip-off the tax payer.