Below is an article comment on an Argus Leader article on Amendment C. It puts the bogus claims of homosexual activists and their apologists in the proper light, along with good context for the whole issue:
I moved from South Dakota to Michigan when I finished college and started my first job. Soon after, I became responsible for taking care of my sister, who has a disability. I was denied health insurance for her solely because she was my sister, rather than my lesbian partner. Consequently, I have followed Michigan's marriage amendment very closely, and would like to challenge the accuracy of Jon Hoadley's claim that the Michigan's marriage amendment had the unintended effect of removing health care for unmarried couples.
Michigan passed a marriage amendment. The Attorney General, Michael Cox, issued a non-binding ruling that the marriage amendment meant that public entities (eg state universities, etc) could not base benefits on the recognition of civil unions.
There's an important point here. Cox did not rule that state entities could not provide insurance to unmarried couples. Rather, Cox ruled that these entities could not provide insurance to unmarried couples while denying insurance to individuals too closely related to be legally married.
Cox's opinion was overturned by a later ruling. It is current policy for state universities to offer health insurance to gay and lesbian couples, while denying single mothers health care for family members that take care of their children.
This position...the position that Hoadley supports...is absurd. It insists that there is nothing uniquely special about the capability of a woman and a man to bear a child, while simultaneously insisting that there is something special about sexual relationships in general.
Posted by:sj
0 comments:
Post a Comment