Gov. Snyder confirms his backward thinking

[bailey]

Ha! So sunk by friendly fire -- then bitch about the enemy.

I'm in favor of gay partner's rights. So I understand, in response to bailey, that this action does impact gay couples. Sorry 'bout that -- but laws shouldn't be written for special cases.

What really seems to have happened here is that public government, under gay pressure that can't be denied, granted benefits to roommates in order to cover legitimate gay couples. That's a really expensive way to get your result, but I understand the motivation. I say go get gay marriage done, if you want benefits. No benefits for roommates. And the sooner the better so legitimate gay couples can get this benefit. But in the meantime, no roommates get benefits... that's a good goal.

btw, how disappointing of Gov. Jenny.

And how disappointing that gay bullying is preventing reasonable fiscal prudence.

Well, when the SSM ban falls, PA 297 will be irrelevant. No one who would otherwise be married but for the SSM ban is advocating for the grant of benefits. No one is asking for "long term relationship" benefits.

the issue is you have people legally married elsewhere being unmarried by the State of Michigan for benefits purposes should one choose to accept a teaching position at UM.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

No one who would otherwise be married but for the SSM ban is advocating for the grant of benefits.

I personally knew people when I lived in NY who signed up friends as their "domestic partner" to get benefits when the city extended city worker benefits to "domestic partners" some years ago [[which is a great deal of money; NYC has 460,000 direct city employees). At the time, the reasoning was that it needed to be done to be fair to gay couples. Interestingly, now that gay marriage is legal, there has been no effort to require marriage for benefits. And there never will be. Once you can hook up another mouth to the taxpayer tit, why change it?

[bailey]

Interestingly, now that gay marriage is legal, there has been no effort to require marriage for benefits. And there never will be. Once you can hook up another mouth to the taxpayer tit, why change it?

that is stupid. And this was predicted by everyone fighting for SSM... you can't have a bunch of ad hoc standards and expect no one will abuse the system.

No one anywhere is saying benefits can't be limited to spouses...they're just saying in order to do so, you need to have marriage equality.

[JBMcB]

Must be an election year. The political BS is flying bright and early.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

No one anywhere is saying benefits can't be limited to spouses...they're just saying in order to do so, you need to have marriage equality.

I know you aren't saying this, Bailey, but I think a lot of people on the left actually despise marriage as an institution, and think it's an archaic institution that should be abolished. Not most everyday liberals, mind you, but a lot of academics and thought leaders. Part of the action to support that line of thought is to assign the tangible benefits of marriage to those who aren't married, thus rendering the marriage less necessary. It is not dissimilar to the housing industry in NYC: taxes and regulation make home ownership much more difficult than it is almost anywhere else [[aside from just high prices). At the same time, the law gives renters more and more owner-like rights. Thus, the age-old goal [[and personal economic boon) of home ownership has fallen off the radar for millions of people.

[Detroitnerd]

you can't have a bunch of ad hoc standards and expect no one will abuse the system.

Oh, that's kind of funny. The whole American way of doing things is founded on abusing the system. If you had a blanket requirement that nobody abuse the system, the system would fall apart from the top down overnight!

[Wesley Mouch]

that is stupid. And this was predicted by everyone fighting for SSM... you can't have a bunch of ad hoc standards and expect no one will abuse the system.

No one anywhere is saying benefits can't be limited to spouses...they're just saying in order to do so, you need to have marriage equality.

SSM is so obviously needed for just this situation. How absurd that we had to resort to this kind of domestic partner silliness just to provide reasonable benefits to reasonable people. As a single person, I think it isn't 'fair' that I subsidize other's spousal benefits. But as long as I do, it should be available to gay couples too.

[Danny]

Don't worry folks Snyder will be a one term nerd. Remember Public [[EM) Flaw Law, Detroit bankruptcy sell-out and the so called Right to Work Law [[ which it means right to destroy unions).

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Don't worry folks Snyder will be a one term nerd. Remember Public [[EM) Flaw Law, Detroit bankruptcy sell-out and the so called Right to Work Law [[ which it means right to destroy unions).

Don't forget the taxing of seniors. That's at the top of the list for most.

[Honky Tonk]

Don't forget the taxing of seniors. That's at the top of the list for most.

The problem with Ricky, is he's done bad things, and he's done good things. I have mixed feelings on him. Some of the good things he's done, I really like. No one ever got anything done rehashing the same old on a forum.