On Dec. 9, a group of LGBT activists sent the following letter to Governor Jennifer Granholm. They are awaiting a response from her office.
Dear Governor Granholm,
Thank you for reiterating your support for domestic partner health insurance in your letter to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community dated Dec. 3, 2004. We appreciate your sentiment that press reports were incorrect regarding your position on these important protections for same-sex couples as negotiated in the contracts for state employees.
We are writing to express our strong hope that we will continue to work together to realize protections for the GLBT community. To our dismay, discussions about the domestic partner benefits were underway without involving key experts from the GLBT community. Furthermore, there was no communication with the GLBT community regarding the decision to remove the domestic partnership benefits from the contract.
The passage of Proposal 2 did not require the state to preemptively deny health insurance for same-sex couples in the negotiated union contracts. The amendment that passed simply states that a union of a man and a woman is the only "agreement" that will be called a marriage or "similar union." We've also been told that the negotiated contract did not recognize same-sex or other unmarried couples as "married" or as members of a "union." Further, proponents of the amendment denied throughout the campaign that this would have an effect on domestic partner coverage. For example, in the Holland Sentinel on Oct. 30, Kristina Hemphill, communications director for Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, said, "This amendment has nothing to do with benefits. It's just a diversion from the real issue."
Now the real issue is thousands of hard-working Michiganians who will be unable to provide health care to their families. We do not believe that voters who cast their vote for Proposal 2 on Nov. 2 thought they would be denying or taking health insurance away from these families. Voters thought they were voting on solely marriage equality because that is what they were told by the campaign to promote Proposal 2.
In fact, accounts in the press already confirm our suspicion – people were voting on marriage, not health insurance benefits. Polls as recent as October clearly indicate that a strong majority of Michiganians support some level of relationship recognition and benefits for same-sex couples. Marriage is in no way, shape or form the same as domestic partnership benefits because they only allow a handful of the 1,138 benefits enjoyed by married couples.
As Governor, the citizens look to you for principled leadership and vision. You serve as a moral compass for many in your roles as Governor, mentor, mother, wife, and person of faith. People look to you to lead Michigan where it needs to go. Bold and courageous leadership sometimes means being at odds with the legislature or the courts. In this issue, public opinion is on your side.
We have all worked hard on behalf of your administration, both inside and outside of the GLBT community. We understand that working together we can better protect the working families in Michigan who are currently denied equal protections. Finally, we look forward to working with you to better represent the intentions of millions of voters in the state who want to see their neighbors, co-workers, friends and family members be treated fairly under the law.
Sincerely,
Jay Kaplan,ACLU-Michigan Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Rights Project
Leslie Thompson,Affirmations Lesbian and Gay Community Center
Beverly Davidson and Alexandra Matish, Coalition for Adoption Rights Equality
Johnny Jenkins, Detroit Black Gay Pride
Michelle Brown, Human Rights Campaign's Detroit Steering Committee
Seth Kilbourn, Human Rights Campaign
Chris Swope, Michigan Equality
Susan Horowitz, Pride Source Media Group
Dan Sturgis, Cheryl Bollinger, Gloria Llama, and Joe Darby, Pride at Work Michigan
Jeffrey Montgomery, Triangle Foundation
