"Pure Michigan" takes on new meaning with benefits ban

Courtesy Lester Graham/Michigan Radio

Governor Rick Snyder and state lawmakers are about to give people another reason to dislike the State of Michigan.

Weeks ago, Republican legislators approved legislation to block public employers from offering taxpayer-paid health insurance to unmarried partners living with some public employees. (The ban would apply to public schools, local governments and some state employees.) I heard on Michigan Radio this morning that the House and Senate versions have been reconciled and the resulting two-page bill has been sent to the governor.

It was reported on December 8 that Snyder promised to sign the ban into law as long as university employees are excluded. (There was confusion about whether the ban applies to public universities, which have constitutional authority to make many of their own policies. The House version used definitions of “public employees” that have in the past included university employees, but direct references to university employees weren’t included in what was sent to Snyder.)

Proponents argue that the ban is what the people want. (Voters approved Proposal 2, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman, back in 2004. Four years later, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that public institutions that offered "domestic partner benefits" were in violation of state law.) They also say it will save money – although I couldn’t find actual estimates or numbers in any of the news stories I read.

Democrats said the state will be hurt economically, driving residents out and making it difficult for universities, schools and municipalities to attract and compete for workers.

The Detroit Free Press urged Snyder to veto the bill. In an editorial published Monday, the Freep said, “Someone needs to stand up and demonstrate that Michigan welcomes everyone. And who better to do it than the governor, who speaks so often about the need to attract and retain talented workers and entrepreneurs to the state? He shouldn't contradict that message by adding that only heterosexuals are welcome.”

When the state senate passed the bills back in October, Emily Dievendorf, Director of Policy for Equality Michigan, made a similar point:

“Tens of thousands of public and private employees in our state have access to health care benefits for domestic partners. This legislation, if passed, would have a devastating impact. This is a crucial issue for Michigan: do we really want to be known as a state with such a regressive legislature that we deny equal access to health care benefits?"

It’s actually not a "gay issue." Unmarried male partners of female workers and female partners of male employees are also affected by the ban, which is why I think it’s a mistake to present this as another attack on gays and lesbians. It is, of course. But it’s not just an attack on these folks. Everybody who, for whatever reason, has chosen not to tie the knot before God and his or her witnesses is impacted. Sadly, if you make it a “gay thing,” you lose listeners. Make it a “politicians are telling us what we can and can’t do” thing and your audience of potential allies widens.

State tourism officials can tout our 3,288 miles of Great Lakes shoreline all they want. They can trumpet our four distinct seasons and breathtaking fall colors and the many attractions and opportunities our state offers until the cows come home. But as long as discrimination is legalized and promoted by state officials, they can’t really talk about the warmth and hospitality of our citizens anymore.

“Pure Michigan,” the tagline of the state tourism campaign, takes on new meaning now, doesn’t it?

This is as discouraging as Lowe’s recent decision to pull its advertising from a television show depicting Muslims as normal Americans. It’s so obviously wrong and divisive and ignorant and short-signed and narrow-minded. It’s one more reason why I drink.

Bottoms up.

Sources: MLive.com, Pridesource.com, Detroit Free Press, Michigan Radio.