Gov. Snyder confirms his backward thinking

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · February-18-14, 12:51 PM

From time to time I am reminded why I left Michigan. I'm seldom surprised, but always disappointed, when I see another instance of the GOP fear and loathing of the gay community.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/in..._river_default

**bailey** · February-18-14, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

From time to time I am reminded why I left Michigan. I'm seldom surprised, but always disappointed, when I see another instance of the GOP fear and loathing of the gay community.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/in..._river_default

The summary judgment motion, filed by Attorney General Bill Schuette's office on behalf of Snyder,..

Its the AG office making the filing. The Gov is a named party in the suit, it's the AGs job to defend the suit. [[not that Schutte isn't milking it.) Snyder has been keeping pretty clear of the social stuff.

Personally, I'm fine with it. I have more of a problem with AGs [[and Govs and POTUSs) deciding that a law is unconstitutional and not defending it. I think that is terrible precedent that progressives are going to regret supporting when President Cruz and his AG are deciding which laws are constitutional and which are not and thus not worthy of defense.

Even bad laws should be defended. It's the Court's job to deal with them, not the executive.

**EL Jimbo** · February-18-14, 01:52 PM

President Cruz? He's so divisive in his own party that he wouldn't even win the GOP nomination let alone win the general election.

**bailey** · February-18-14, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by EL Jimbo

President Cruz? He's so divisive in his own party that he wouldn't even win the GOP nomination let alone win the general election.

I was being a bit facetious. President Huckabee then? he's the current frontrunner for the Rs in 2016 now that Christie flamed out.

**Wesley Mouch** · February-18-14, 02:27 PM

From MLive: "Public Act 297 is a logical and cohesive part of the effort to reduce costs and to address the fiscal insecurity of local governments that has increased exponentially over the past five years," the state's attorneys wrote in the motion. "It is not singular and does not target same-sex couples."

Further, the law specifically says that benefits may be granted to 'married' couples...

Sec. 3. [[1) A public employer shall not provide medical benefits or other fringe benefits for an individual currently residing in the same residence as a public employee, if the individual is not 1 or more of the following:
[[a) Married to the employee.
[[b) A dependent of the employee, as defined in the internal revenue code of 1986.
[[c) Otherwise eligible to inherit from the employee under the laws of intestate succession in this state.
[[2) A provision in a contract entered into after the effective date of this act that conflicts with the requirements of this act is void.

So since gay marriage is going to be the law of the land, what's the problem. Get married. And you may be eligible for benefits. If not, then you're just a co-resident at the house. Gay advocates want equal treatment. This is equal.

I don't know, but isn't the idea that just anyone living at the same address gets publicly paid-for benefits without marriage a little fiscally dangerous?

I like that Snyder and team are working towards fair laws... which makes me think of Schauer's Fahle appearance. I lost count of how many advocacy groups he was 'showering' with money.

Me, I'll take fiscal restraint.

**bailey** · February-18-14, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

From MLive: "Public Act 297 is a logical and cohesive part of the effort to reduce costs and to address the fiscal insecurity of local governments that has increased exponentially over the past five years," the state's attorneys wrote in the motion. "It is not singular and does not target same-sex couples."

Further, the law specifically says that benefits may be granted to 'married' couples...

Sec. 3. [[1) A public employer shall not provide medical benefits or other fringe benefits for an individual currently residing in the same residence as a public employee, if the individual is not 1 or more of the following:
[[a) Married to the employee.
[[b) A dependent of the employee, as defined in the internal revenue code of 1986.
[[c) Otherwise eligible to inherit from the employee under the laws of intestate succession in this state.
[[2) A provision in a contract entered into after the effective date of this act that conflicts with the requirements of this act is void.

So since gay marriage is going to be the law of the land, what's the problem. Get married. And you may be eligible for benefits. If not, then you're just a co-resident at the house. Gay advocates want equal treatment. This is equal.

I don't know, but isn't the idea that just anyone living at the same address gets publicly paid-for benefits without marriage a little fiscally dangerous?

I like that Snyder and team are working towards fair laws... which makes me think of Schauer's Fahle appearance. I lost count of how many advocacy groups he was 'showering' with money.

Me, I'll take fiscal restraint.

Well, you've completely missed the small issue that gay marriage is not yet the law of the land. SS people can not, in fact, get married to each other in Michigan... nor could they at the time this law was enacted.

You can't say it's not targeting SS couples when the measure restricts the benefits to married people and SS couples are specifically excluded from being married, or in any other like relationship, under Michigan law.

Public entities decided to grant equal benefits to those who had entered into marriages or domestic partnerships, this was Dave Agema's retribution measure.

**Detroitnerd** · February-18-14, 02:38 PM

I think I may have more respect for Dave Agema than Gov. Snyder. It's one thing to take a nutty stand on something you believe in. It's quite another to stand back and declare yourself a fiscal conservative and sign every whacked-out social conservative piece of legislation that comes before you ...

**bailey** · February-18-14, 02:51 PM

Neither Snyder or Agema can be blamed for Jennifer “marriage is between a man and a woman”Granholm and Michigan Democrats sitting silently on their hands while Prop 2 got passed. With out prop 2, there is no PA 297-- which is a logical measure [[ignoring its petty, revenge based animus) to clamp down on decisions public entities were making to grant benefits to people that are no more than room mates under the law.

Those of us that were standing around with Granholm's knife in our back in 2004 predicted that Rs would do exactly what they did.

Profiles in courage..that lot.

**313WX** · February-18-14, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I think I may have more respect for Dave Agema than Gov. Snyder. It's one thing to take a nutty stand on something you believe in. It's quite another to stand back and declare yourself a fiscal conservative and sign every whacked-out social conservative piece of legislation that comes before you ...

^^^That's pretty much the long and short of it for me.

**313WX** · February-18-14, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Neither Snyder or Agema can be blamed for Jennifer “marriage is between a man and a woman”Granholm and Michigan Democrats sitting silently on their hands while Prop 2 got passed.

It was the people of Michigan who voted in an election to outlaw Gay Marriage under Granholm's term if I recall correctly [[the same election in which the people of Michigan also voted to outlaw Affirmative Action).

Granholm had no say in the decision.

**Wesley Mouch** · February-18-14, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Neither Snyder or Agema can be blamed for Jennifer “marriage is between a man and a woman”Granholm and Michigan Democrats sitting silently on their hands while Prop 2 got passed. With out prop 2, there is no PA 297-- which is a logical measure [[ignoring its petty, revenge based animus) to clamp down on decisions public entities were making to grant benefits to people that are no more than room mates under the law.

Those of us that were standing around with Granholm's knife in our back in 2004 predicted that Rs would do exactly what they did.

Profiles in courage..that lot.

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.

**bailey** · February-18-14, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

^^^That's pretty much the long and short of it for me.

If SSM is illegal in Michigan, then how is PA 297 a "whacked out social conservative" piece of legislation?

As you post in your next post, the people of michigan spoke on this point. SSM and anything that looks like it is not recognized in Michigan. Why should legal strangers get benefits that are routinely limited to dependents or spouses?

**bailey** · February-18-14, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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** · February-18-14, 03:35 PM

Administrative officials have a legal obligation to implement and defend existing law; they can campaign against it, but they are in violation of both their job description and oath of office to not enforce state law. Most often, this affects Attorneys General who have to defend in court state law, even when they disagree with it.

When gay marriage is legal, we will then see the extension of benefits to married gay couples. If we extend marriage benefits to non-married gay people, then we have to extend them to non-married straight people. That would be both expensive and ripe for fraud.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · February-18-14, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

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?

**313WX** · February-18-14, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

If SSM is illegal in Michigan, then how is PA 297 a "whacked out social conservative" piece of legislation?

It's the idea that SSM is illegal which PA 297 doubles down on that's "whacked out social conservatism."

**313WX** · February-18-14, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

As you post in your next post, the people of michigan spoke on this point. SSM and anything that looks like it is not recognized in Michigan. Why should legal strangers get benefits that are routinely limited to dependents or spouses?

My point was you were blaming Granholm for something that was passed beyond her control.

**bailey** · February-18-14, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

It's the idea that SSM is illegal which PA 297 doubles down on that's "whacked out social conservatism."

But, again, as you said, the people spoke on this issue and by a 60-40 margin [[IIRC the strictest such measure nationwide) then isnt the Gov doing the work the people demand?

**bailey** · February-18-14, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

My point was you were blaming Granholm for something that was passed beyond her control.

She did nothing to oppose it and in fact stated that "marrige is between a man and a woman". Granholm would have signed PA 297 into law if it came across her desk. So is she also a wacked out social conservative?

I'm blaming granholm and Michigan democrats as a group as being complete cowards. They didn't even mount a defense.

**bailey** · February-18-14, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

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** · February-18-14, 04:00 PM

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

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · February-18-14, 04:08 PM

I favor marriage equality [[supported it in a high school debate in 1992 and ever since). But I don't favor ignoring or bending existing law. I think the next time gay marriage is on the ballot, it will pass by 10 percent or more. More people are for legal gay marriage every day. But until either the legislature [[less likely soon) or the voters [[very likely) legalize it, it isn't legal. I can't click the heels of my ruby slippers together to make it so.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · February-18-14, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

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** · February-18-14, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

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** · February-18-14, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

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.