Daddy, Papa and Me

It was a classic bait-and-switch. When gay-rights opponents sought to amend Michigan’s constitution to prohibit, not only same-sex marriage, but also “similar union[s] for any purpose,” they told us that the amendment was not about taking away employment benefits. They told us that in their speeches. They told us that in their campaign literature. They told us that in their commercials.

They lied.

The initiative passed, the constitution was amended, and before the ink was dry the opponents changed their tune and demanded that municipalities and state universities revoke health-insurance benefits for same-sex domestic partners.

So, instead of just "protecting [straight] marriage" by limiting marriage to a man and a woman, even the 'limited' amendments are designed to patently _take away_ rights that have been struggled for and won over the years. This has been proven again and again, Michigan is only the latest example. Marriage equality opponents claim they are only putting these anti-gay amendments on the ballot to limit marriage, not to take away rights or change what rights gay and lesbian people already have. And then as _soon_ as the amendment passes, the very same groups start law suits to take away already existing rights based on the amendment.

Classic bait and switch. That's why these amendments _must_ be stopped. They not only limit my family's rights, they take away any we might already have.

And why do we need these rights?

A recent lawsuit in Maryland illustrates that.

Here's the story in a nutshell:

Two men fall in love in 1998.
The move in together in 2000.
They have a commitment ceremony in 2002.
One of them falls ill and dies of AIDS in 2004.

Beforehand the couple draw up wills and burial documents. They buy plots in Tennessee (near where they were from) to be buried next to each other.

He is buried there.

A while later, the parents sue to have the body moved to a family burial plot (when they were alive, they had problems with his sexuality). The parents lose the suit. Now they are appealing. Read more about it here and here.

If they had been married, this couple, the parent's suit would be thrown out of court. Or if not, it would take an act of congress to usurp the marriage rights.

Yet, this man, and thousands and thousands of others, including me, have to endure being considered legal strangers and having others just push aside our rights and obligations. Luckily for us, we now have domestic partnership, and are working on as much legal protections as possible through powers of attorney, living trusts, etc.(which isn't cheap, easy or complete). But as we learn from Michigan, one amendment can take that all away.

So, yep, we'll fight them.

(Ampersand and Hydrangeas are Pretty both linked to this. THere is an interesting discussion going on over and Amptoons (ampersand). I think commenter RonF is either being a bit disingenious or perhaps he wasn't paying attention when he claims proponents of the amendment were claiming it wouldn't affect then-current benefits and rights given by others. Their websites are long down but some commenters have found some good links to show that they did and when it was brought up, they denied it or didn't want to talk about it. It has happened in other states too, including television commercials directly claiming the amendments wouldn't hurt existing rights and benefits.

It's alsoa bit picking at nits (and just plain wrong) to say health benefits and other domestic partnership rights and obligations aren't rights as RonF does. It is my right to be treated equally as a citizen and employee. Thus in these cities and universities, LGBT citizens fought hard and long for that _right_ to be treated equal in at least this one aspect, equal partnership benefits to health care in a piecemeal city by city, employer by employer manner. It's our _right_ to be treated equal, it was granted and now that right has been taken away.