By Eric Rader
Over the past few weeks, much of the nation has been focused on national and international events, including the killing of Osama bin Laden, developments in the Mideast peace process, large spikes in the price of gas, and tornadoes and flooding in the southern portion of the U.S. Meanwhile, the 2012 presidential campaign is just beginning to heat up, with President Obama declaring his candidacy for a second term and a number of Republicans making decisions on whether they will take on the incumbent.
With all that's going on in the world, sometimes it's hard to keep track of events happening closer to home.
In Lansing, our political leaders have been busily working on the 2012 budget for the state of Michigan. Last year, Rick Snyder campaigned for governor on a pledge to reform Michigan's tax structure to make the state more appealing for business development (in his view), and to balance the state budget with large cuts in spending. The legislature and the governor are now negotiating the final details of the taxing and spending package for next year. The merits of Gov. Snyder's policies should be debated, as they have been vigorously since January. One thing is clear, whether a person supports the governor's plans or opposes his proposals: Michigan voters were focused on the state's challenged economy, not social issues, when they elected Republicans to lead our government last November.
Unfortunately, it seems that the large Republican majorities in the Michigan House and Senate think that they received a mandate from the voters to pursue radical social policies. One of the Michigan Senate's first actions this year was to approve a reversal of the Michigan Civil Service Commission's decision to grant domestic partner benefits to state employees. While the Senate's effort did not survive in the House, Michigan's Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette has announced that his office will go to court in an effort to overturn these benefits. It seems that in those rare instances when the political majority in Lansing can't achieve its aims legislatively, they'll waste state resources on lawsuits to accomplish the same goals.
The central reason why it's so difficult for public institutions in Michigan to offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees is because of Proposal 2, the anti-gay marriage initiative approved by voters in 2004. This amendment has been interpreted as meaning that public institutions cannot offer any benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. To get around this discriminatory interpretation of Proposal 2, several public universities and the state of Michigan approved "plus-one" employee benefit plans that allow employees to add a person living in their household to their employer-sponsored health plans. A few weeks ago, Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, added an amendment to the higher education appropriations bill that would reduce a university's state funding by 5 percent if it offers plus-one benefits to its employees. Senate Republicans have inserted separate language in the higher education budget that would restrict the efforts of universities to prohibit discrimination against LGBTs by students in counseling programs. These mean-spirited amendments, which do nothing to balance the state budget, are now being considered as part of the final budget conference process between the Michigan House and Senate.
Gov. Snyder has largely stayed out of the debates over social issues since he took office, though he did voice his opposition to the civil service commission's decision to grant domestic partner benefits. During his campaign last year, Snyder indicated that he supported providing some legal recognition to same-sex couples. To his credit, the governor does support comprehensive anti-bullying legislation now pending in the Michigan Legislature. Unfortunately, the governor's Republican colleagues would like to water-down this bill, eliminating sexual orientation and gender identity as enumerated categories in the legislation.
Our leaders in Lansing have a huge task in the next few years, one that should be about transitioning the state into a new economy for the 21st century. Michigan voters did not send officials to the state capital to pursue discriminatory social policies. Indeed, states will remain economically stagnant if they do not show they believe in equality, inclusivity, and basic fairness. Discrimination is wrong and should not be advanced by our political leaders. The religious right was frustrated for eight years by former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who stymied their efforts to enact a regressive social agenda. Now, they are attempting to push the same repellant policies, hoping that a Republican governor will be more sympathetic to their cause. We need to remind Gov. Snyder and other Republicans that they were elected to improve the well-being of all Michigan citizens, regardless of who they are. If our officials don't fulfill their true mandate from the people, then the voters should send our leaders packing at election time.
Contact Gov. Snyder and your legislators – urge them to oppose the efforts to insert social issues in the state budget:
[email protected]
Phone: 517-335-7858
Find your Michigan Representative:
http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp
Find your Michigan Senator:
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/fysenator/fysenator.htm
Tell Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette that you oppose his lawsuit challenging the Michigan Civil Service Commission:
[email protected]
Phone: 517-373-1110
