Michigan Lawmakers Want to Stop Employers From Giving Partner Benefits

[Newsjock]

Source: The Advocate

Michigan could soon become one of the least welcoming to same-sex couples if a pair of bills, which were approved by a House committee on Tuesday, make their way into state law books.

Republicans on the Oversight, Reform and Ethics Committee voted to bar employers from giving benefits to anyone not married or related to an employee. Although the rules don’t say “gay” anywhere in them, it’s clear who they target, according to Equality Michigan.

... Republicans also voted to make it illegal for any union to negotiate on benefits for unmarried couples. The committee’s four Republicans easily outvoted the two Democrats – Reps. Timothy Bledsoe and Lisa Brown.

Read more: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/06/22/Michigan_Lawmakers_Want_to_Stop_Employers_From_Giving_Partner_Benefits/

[Scuba]

1. Small government Republicans?

[RKP5637]

2. The petty hatefulness in this country is astounding. n/t

[sakabatou]

3. WTF?!

[SharonRB]

4. With the way things have been going here...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this passes. Disgusting!

firericksnyder.org

[bluestateguy]

5. Big government conservatism

They would have the state government forbid a private employer from offering same sex benefits, even if that employer thinks it is good for their business.

[EC]

6. Well, this just proves that repubs don't mind regulating

corporations, just as long as it is something religious. Sanctimonious ass*oles.

[avebury]

9. EC - I totally agree

[Xithras]

13. This is bad for those businesses too.

Many countries, particularly in Europe, have laws that prohibit discrimination against employees with registered civil unions and require them to offer similar pay and benefits. If Michigan based multinationals like GM and Chrysler are banned from offering same sex benefits, there could face repercussions ranging from overseas boycotts to penalties by foreign governments. At a minimum, those companies will come under a lot of international pressure to move their headquarters out of a state that "forces" them to discriminate against gays.

These lawmakers may end up doing a huge amount of damage if this passes.

[No Elephants]

14. I don't recall anything in the Bible about making laws to prevent employers from giving

benefits to same gender couples.

This smacks a lot more of RW political pandering to the far religious right than it does of religion. JMO

[Unvanguard]

7. This is pure, gratuitous evil, manifest as plainly as evil ever is.

There is no room for reasonable and decent people to disagree on something like this. No one should pretend otherwise, or mince words on this topic.

[No Elephants]

15. +1

[gratuitous]

18. No it isn't

If was pure, gratuitous evil, it would a lot eviller, I'm here to tell you. This is just generic, run-of-the-mill, stupid, pointless, petty evil promulgated by hypocrites who would make the scribes and pharisees in Matthew 23 blush.

[Politicub]

20. +1

Do these people get off on being evil or something?

[avebury]

8. If employers want to provide benefits to their employees'

partners what business is it of government to interfer? This country in turning into a totalitarian regime from eastcoast to west coast, north and south.

[housewolf]

10. This smacks of government meddling in private matters

Why would government give a rat's a** that some private companies chose to allow their employees to include an unmarried partner in their benefit plans??????

Smacks of "social engineering" if you ask me.

[Xithras]

11. Hard to see how this could survive court challenge.

I ran a business up until two years ago. If I, as an employer, wanted to offer benefits to my employees cats, neighbors, or third cousins, I don't see how that's any business of the government. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the right to freely associate both as individuals, and as groups and businesses. By telling me, as a business owner, that I can't offer benefits to someone, they're restricting my right to associate with them as I see fit. I'm also pretty sure that this would run afoul of the 14th Amendment, as it's depriving citizens of liberty (again, freedom to associate and distribute wealth through benefits) without due process.

I find some irony in the fact that Republicans, who have long slammed government medical and financial aid as un-needed, and who often cite charitable giving as a better alternative, are now trying to legislate generosity out of existence merely because they don't like the recipients. There is NO WAY this can survive court challenge.

On Edit:
I should mention that this isn't just a threat to homosexuals. While I didn't have any gay employees with life partners, I did have an unmarried heterosexual employee who had lived with his girlfriend for several years. Our insurance policy offered coverage to those partners if they could prove two years of continuous cohabitation, even without a marriage license. As I read it, the Michigan law would ban that sort of thing as well.

[customerserviceguy]

19. While your argument is sound

They probably have the right to make the premiums paid by an employer for non-related persons' benefit non-deductible when calculating state income taxes. That would have the same effect.

[SoapBox]

12. Just keep on making the state more and more UNFRIENDLY and drive away jobs.

Idiots. Always worried about what everybody else is doing in their beds. They are PERVERTS I say!

AND, every, single thing that these Thugs can do, to destroy jobs...they are doing it.

Hell, the state is already in one hell of a mess...guess they think they need to make it even worse.

First jobs to go...NEED to be THEIRS!

[comtec]

16. WHat happened to letting the market decide?

fucking hypocrites!

[awoke_in_2003]

17. What???

Even down here (TX), companies are allowed to offer partner benefits.