< link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://fumare.us/" > < meta name="DC.identifier" content="http://fumare.blogspot.com" > <!-- --><style type="text/css">@import url(https://www.blogger.com/static/v1/v-css/navbar/3334278262-classic.css); div.b-mobile {display:none;} </style> </head> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12407651\x26blogName\x3dFUMARE\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://fumare.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d6298351012122011485', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Law, culture, and Catholicism...up in smoke!

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Pat and Dick Lose Private "Partnership" Benefits

The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that company programs that allow benefits to so-called domestic "partners" by virtue of an alleged civil union violate the defense of marriage amendment to the MI Constitution.

Affected employers include: The State of Michigan (yep, civil servant Judy's dear partner Pat gets state benefits on your tax dollar); "The" University of Michigan; and others.

See the Freep article calling it a "cruel" decision.

Some expect the Supreme Court to overrule based on the fact that it means less money from the till for insurance companies. Others expect them to affirm because it means more money for insurance companies in disaffected premiums.

The reality is that the ruling, while upholding the amendment, does not foreclose similar benefits to be given but for other reasons. In other words, these companies can continue to give benefits to "another" person connected to the worker, but cannot do it for the purpose of supporting a so-called civil union.