Michigan and Partner Benefits

In the last election, Michigan voters, I am embarrassed to say, approved an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. Here is the text of that amendment in its entirety:

Article 1, Section 25: 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.

Prior to the election, backers of the amendment swore up and down that it only dealt with who could get married, not with partnership benefits offered as part of union contracts or insurance agreements. Now that the election is over - surprise, surprise - the truth comes out. Michigan has now voided an already-approved union contract provision providing benefits for domestic partners for all state employees. Governor Jennifer Granholm says it is required by the law, but that makes little sense. The union contract does not recognize domestic partnerships as marriages; it doesn't have to in order to offer those benefits to employees.

The fact is, in a union contract, they can negotiate providing health insurance benefits for pets if they want to and it doesn't mean they've married their pets. Employers can offer whatever benefits they think are necessary to compete and attract the best employees and that has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage, which is what the amendment addressed. Why is Granholm agreeing to this? Because the state is in a budget crisis and this allows her to save some money and put the blame on the "will of the people". But the truth is that she's just selling out the employees who negotiated the contract and violating her own agreements in those negotiations. Shame on you, Granholm.