| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Judical Activism?; Gay partners to recieve benefits. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 3 2005, 08:32 PM (73 Views) | |
| tomdrobin | Oct 3 2005, 08:32 PM Post #1 |
|
Member
|
Here in my home state of MI, there has just been a judicial decision, that the ban passed by referendum on gay marriage does not preclude the state government, universities and other public institutions from offering spousal benefits to gay employee's partners. I believe this is a case of judicial activism that has so frustrated cons in this country. And, lead to the nomination of supreme court judges who are centrist or slightly right of center in their beliefs on judicial jurisprudence by the current federal administration. I don't mean to imply that I believe gay partners shouldn't have equal rights. But, to provide benefits for them and not for the unmarried partners of all singles is discriminatory. We still need to have the domestic partnership for everyone who desires it, available through government. What the court does is let public institutions provide benefits while at the same time requiring no other committment like community property rights, next of kin rights etc. This leaves a system that is prone to abuse. I couldn't threaten my wife with loss of her spousal benefits through my former employer, not without paying dearly in other ways. Not so with gay couples, the one who is the primary beneficiary could just dump the one with the spousal benefits and leave them without coverage without recourse. Bad decision IMO by judges who think they are entitled to legislate. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 3 2005, 08:57 PM Post #2 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Would need to see the referendum. And MI's Constitution. And the court's decision. Activism implies they are creating law. Something to ponder. I'm reading a history of the law in the US and during the Colonial Period the courts did just that, so-called "activism" was the order of the day. Not to say the Constitution didn't aim to change that. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 4 2005, 06:43 PM Post #3 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
So far what I'm seeing is one side trying to use a marriage amendment to the MI Constitution to block employment benefits, and a judge saying that was not the intent of the amendment. Apparently voters were told it would not interfere with those benefits. If that is the case the judg is not legislating from the bench but interpreting the law. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| pentax | Oct 4 2005, 09:40 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Kamloops - BC Interior
|
Do Common Law relationships not qualify for spousal benefits in your state, tom? I agree that S.B.'s should not apply the first day ANY partner moves in, but after a period of time (perhaps based on when "other rights" kick in?), then they should, IMO. (btw - I never know what folks mean by "Mi" - Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota....?) |
![]() (thumbnail) ![]() "Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!" | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Oct 4 2005, 09:46 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
I thought it was Mississippi - most I's
|
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 5 2005, 10:07 PM Post #6 |
|
Member
|
To my knowledge "common law" relationships do not qualify for benefits. I am in agreement that all who seek a domestic partnership with all the benefits should be entitled. But, to make a narrow acception based on political ideology is I believe judicial activism. Brewster: All the states have a 2 alpha character abbreviation for mailing address purposes. MI=Michigan, MN= Minnesota, MO= Missouri. I think Montana is MT, but not 100% sure. I'll see if I can find a link. http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0110468.html |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 6 2005, 04:15 AM Post #7 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"But, to make a narrow acception based on political ideology is I believe judicial activism." Right, if that was actually what the voters voted for. I hear they were told these benefits would not be affected. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |










My Favourite Campsite
1:04 PM Jul 11