In Michigan, Rights Should Not Be Subject to Budgetary Whims

Perhaps it goes without saying that, after the U.S. midterm elections, we would all be tightening out belt. (And by “we,” of course I mean state governments and regular individuals, not the obscenely wealthy, but I digress …)

So it should be no surprise we are seeing, all across the country, state legislatures and governors slashing budgets, just trying to make ends meet. I sympathize, I do. Having no money is horrible and stressful, and at some point, something’s gotta give.

I get it.

But this should not be an excuse to push totally regressive policies, the only aim of which is to further oppress and humiliate.

This is happening in Michigan, where state officials are working to rescind domestic partner benefits in an attempt to cut costs.

But if you think this is a social issue, you are, evidently, very much mistaken. Michigan just doesn’t have the money to respect your relationship pay for your partner’s health insurance.

Balderdash. Strong language, I know. But I think it’s warranted.

The right to have a domestic partner receive health insurance is a fairly recent occurrence in Michigan. It was only in January that the Civil Service Commission ruled to extend benefits to same-sex couples and others living with Michigan state employees.

There are some defenders of the new policy. Democratic State Senator Rebekah Warren says that, if Michigan wants to run its affairs like a business (which it does, I guess), it should continue to offer those benefits. After all, many top businesses in the country do.

Senator Warren, I appreciate the sentiment, but you are totally missing the point. This isn’t about the budget, or running state government like a business. Maybe I would buy that argument if the state cut spousal benefits across the board. That would probably save way more money, because straight couples tend to outnumber gay couples.

But if someone were to bring that up, they would be laughed out of the room. Why? Because you couldn’t just take away the benefits of married couples! Madness!

No, this is not about money. It’s about an inherent lack of respect for gay and lesbian relationships. Married couples are the real deal; gay couples are not. They are transient, temporary, less than. And it’s insulting.

It is just one more way politicians are pushing a social agenda under the guise of budget worries.

We’ve seen this over and over these past few months, and particularly in the past few weeks. We’ve seen social programs and progressive policies under attack, all in the name of saving money. Unions are under attack in several states, most notably in Wisconsin, where the governor is not only demanding that unionized public employees give significant concessions (which they gave) but also give up the right to ever get those concessions back. There has been a push to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides a wide spectrum of health services for low-income women.

Pardon me if I’m eating up this baloney of budgets being the priority. (I’m a vegetarian, but I wouldn’t even if I wasn’t.) This is a push to not only continue the oppression of the LGBT population, but also a push to put women’s and worker’s rights back decades.

It’s a sickening display of the haves sticking it to have nots. But as the evil Dr. Facilier says in The Princess and the Frog, “freedom takes green.”

It certainly looks that way. Send the Michigan State Senate a message that basic civil rights shouldn't be subject to arbitrary budget cuts.

Photo credit: seannaber