Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Down on Domestic Partners

[Law] An interesting decision came down from the Michigan Supreme Court today regarding insurance benefits for domestic partners of public employees. Like Utah, Michigan has a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage. Like Utah, certain cities, counties and public universities are recognizing (or trying to recognize) domestic partnerships in their employee benefit packages.

Hunker down Utah--now that Michigan has set a precedent, I can see our morality police jumping on the litigation bandwagon any minute now. LaVar Christensen, Gayle Ruzicka, Chris Buttars, are you all over it?

(Holly Mullen)


  1. Holly Mullen's point is not clear, but a Michigan court does not set precedent for courts in Utah. And it's doubtful whether the Michigan constitutional amendment carries the same wording as the Utah constitutional amendment. A Michigan decision can, however, be a persuasive argument for Utah courts (and for Utah polemics) should the same issues be presented here. That, perhaps, is the thought behind Mullen's comment. But after reviewing her article (to which Mullen's comment refers the reader), and the comments of Jenny Wilson and others attached to that article, it appears there are other more pressing issues regarding health benefits for domestic partners than just their constitutionality. The real issue is whether the County -- or any other part of government -- can really afford them without bankrupting us all.

  2. Get used to it.

    The times, they are a'changin.

  3. The county can afford to build a mega-stadium in Sandy, and the U.S. can afford to throw away trillions of dollars in a neverending preemptive war, but Americans can't afford to buy health insurance?

    What kind of messed-up situation is that, Roger Chapman?

    (Brandon Burt)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.