Andries Coetzee has already started looking for a new job.
The University of Michigan linguistics professor is afraid he’s going to lose benefit allowances for his domestic partner of seven years, who is in remission after an exhausting battle with soft tissue sarcoma, a rare type of cancer.
A recurrence is an all-too-real risk, and good health care is essential, argues Coetzee, who has been with partner Gary Woodall for seven years.
But domestic partner benefits for state employees —including staff at Michigan’s 15 public universities— are in jeopardy due to a bill that seeks to save approximately $8 million a year by eliminating the benefits. House bill 4770 was approved by the Michigan House of Representatives in September in a 64-44 vote and is currently under consideration by the state senate.
Coetzee, who moved to Ann Arbor from South Africa ten years ago, said he is frustrated that rights for same sex couples in Michigan appear to be “moving in the opposite direction” of most communities. This year alone, five states have passed or enacted legislation allowing civil unions between same sex couples.
This is so blatantly discriminatory it defies belief- can you imagine a bill proposing the elimination of benefits for black people?
If you are going to single people out for savings, why target homosexuals? Target heterosexuals- that is where the real money is. If this is really about money, put up a bill proposing the elimination of all benefits for spouses and children. You’ll save tens of millions- wives and kids and pregnancies are super expensive.
But this isn’t really about money. It’s about gay-bashing. It always is with these assholes.
Villago Delenda Est
OK, when faced with this kind of fucking stupidity, John, is it any wonder some see suicide bombing of their tormentors as a reasonable response?
Hunter Gathers
Sssshhhh. Don’t give them any more ideas.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
Of course it is – if not for all the gay bashing and slut shaming, what the fuck would the have to do? There are only so many hours of the day they can devote to g*d bothering. Assholes.
Loneoak
Unfortunately, this is probably exactly the wrong tack to take: there’s no way you are going to convince the nutters that ‘their tax dollars’ should be paying for chemo for a foreigner’s buttsex partner, let alone a foreigner that teaches liberal arts.
kindness
Obviously the only way to get the attention of the Christianists out there is to raise the tax on Bibles.
I say we raise the tax to 1000% and see their reactions.
@Loneoak: ‘Their’ tax dollars don’t pay for it. The person who has the insurance policy gets to ‘pay for’ their spouse.
harlana
I’m going to plead ignorance here. I’m curious as to how the state defines “domestic partner” – if you aren’t married (obviously this guy lives in MI so he isn’t) what is the qualifier for MI? Is it a common law sort of thing? How does that work with federal employees as well? What differentiates unmarried but cohabiting heteros from gay cohabiting couples who want to, but are unable, to get married? Unless a civil union is involved but I don’t know if MI has those. Please enlighten, thank you.
Warren Terra
There are basically 10 million people in Michigan. The argument that this change is being made to save each one 80 cents a year just won’t fly. It’s pretty obviously just the Talivangelicals seizing their opportunity to demonstrate that they hate gay folks.
gnomedad
Cut the deficit and stick it to someone “the base” hates. Win-win.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Of course I can imagine them passing a bill eliminating coverage for blacks. They will do it as soon as they realize how little money this saves. I’m just not evil enough to think of how they are going to do it.
staci
What does this have to do with black people? Please don’t tell me you’re comparing being gay to being black.
Jay C
John, much as I agree with your “it’s always about gay-bashing with these assholes” thesis in general, is the proposed Michigan benefits-cut truly aimed solely at gays (despite the facile assumptions of the interviewees in your linked article)? According to the GOP assclown who so blithely dismisses domestic partners as mere “roommates”, the benefit cuts would affect hetero DP couples as well; so the notion of this bill as mainly “gay-bashing” (as if inhumane cheapskatery wasn’t bad enough!) doesn’t follow. Even though gays (being unable to legally “marry” in MI) would probably still bear the brunt of the effects.
Don
Oh, I don’t think it’s so much gay bashing as it is the remove-the-safety-net playbook at work. They lead the invasion with two prongs: discredit and slander groups who have any positive perception on the one hand, attack the groups with lesser support on the other.
They’ve spent years blasting unions and playing up every mis-step one has ever made (because we know that, on the flip side, the invisible hand has never had a negative or counter-productive outcome) until they can be the goat. “Why should these people have rights to things you don’t?!?!?”
Going after the gays who get partner benefits is just easy because they’re enough of a minority they think they can get away with it. They’d shitcan any public worker’s benefits if they could, but they’ll settle for doing it to around 5%… to start.
eric
@staci: why, yes, I believe he is for the making of his point. What is your point?
Phylllis
@kindness: Heh. When I worked at the bookstore, Bibles were sold tax-exempt. Except we had to manually override the tax key. Which most of us would ‘forget’ to do if the person buying it was exceptionally obnoxious (many, many were).
Phylllis
@kindness: Heh. When I worked at the bookstore, Bibles were sold tax-exempt. Except we had to manually override the tax key. Which most of us would ‘forget’ to do if the person buying it was exceptionally obnoxious (many, many were).
RalfW
I hope this prof is successful in finding a new job post-haste. In a welcoming state that wants and respects gays.
Its high fucking time we go live where were wanted and tell the red state haters to fuck off ASAP.
Its time for a gay brain-drain.
If Minnesota goes the way of the haters in 12 months, I’ll be lookin’ seriously at a marriage or D.P. state — or leaving the US entirely.
But for the next 12 months I’ll stay and fight.
GregB
It’s just a part of the culture of life fostered by your local compassionate conservative.
Amanda in the South Bay
I’m not sure there is a thing as “hetero” DPs. Here in CA for example, domestic partnership != common law marriage (which I believe don’t exist in CA-that is, CA recognizes common law marriages entered into other states, but you can’t enter into one here). Here, DPs are for opposite sex couples, and hetero couples over the age of 70 or something. They are not the same thing as common law marriages. IANAL and know nothing about Michigan’s DP law.
eric
@Amanda in the South Bay: I have seen pron with hetero DPs, so I am sure they exist.
Warren Terra
@Jay C:
No, it won’t. Look, I’m all in favor of eliminating government ownership of the word “marriage”, with all its complicated religious meanings, and having the government only recognize Domestic Partnership. And if a heterosexual couple decides they’d rather register as Domestic Partners than get married, more power to them. But they have the option. If any member of a heterosexual couple finds themselves losing badly needed benefits as a result of this change, that heterosexual couple can just go and get married; it costs $20, and they will have to wait three days; they don’t even need a blood test. If they’re spendthrifts and in a hurry, they can go to Vegas and be married the same day. Mr. Coatzee and partner don’t have the same option.
harlana
@Phylllis: heh!
Martin
Because the GOP has no gay voting demographic to speak of, and singling out blacks would get the DOJ all up their ass.
The real question the GOP legislature is asking is “Who can we save money off of who will not cost us the next election?” That’s an easy list: gays, immigrants, kids, minorities. Anyone who doesn’t vote, or doesn’t vote GOP.
Villago Delenda Est
@staci:
Certainly don’t tell Colin Powell that. He’ll get all indignant.
Even though the same arguments were made in opposition to racial desegregation of the military as were made to dropping the ban on homosexuals.
Just don’t tell Colin that. It would offend him.
Martin
@Phylllis: Tax-free Bibles is a bit ironic considering what Jesus was accused of.
TheMightyTrowel
@Amanda in the South Bay:
[insert rant about patriarchal traditions/beliefs that permeate marriage as an institution and the british civil marriage process.]
Conclusion: houses of worship can marry anyone they want, but only a legal signature (without any of the trappings) in a registry office should give you rights under the law and those rights should be available for everyone.
JPL
OT…Cain is giving a speech and he says our country has a moral crisis. hmmmm
Zifnab
What are you talking about? This is $8 million dollars! That’s, like, a quarter per state resident per year in taxes. This is serious business, people! We’re just trying to save you money is all.
Raenelle
I rarely disagree with you John, but IMO it’s always about the money. Bigotry is the means, not the end.
Jewish Steel
@Martin:
Blasphemy?
We had him dead to rights on that. Sorry Christians! ;)
Short Bus Bully
Yes, I absolutely can. Our civilization is hanging on by the skin of our fucking teeth.
Still waiting for the next GOP debate to be won by whoever says “I can guaran-damn-tee that no one who votes for me will ever have their tax money used to fund abortions… Or lazy brown folks.”
Villago Delenda Est
@JPL:
This country is in a moral crisis. Immoral assholes like Herman Cain have not been banished to the North Slope of Alaska to meditate on their moral sin of endless greed.
Betsy
At least, (if there is an upside to this horrible law) it will provide more evidence — current, recent, fresh, nasty evidence — that being gay is a class that is discriminated against, and therefore the courts will be more likely to allow it to join the list of protected/suspect classes for purposes of constitutional protections.
Mattminus
@staci:
I do believe that was the starting gun in the oppression olympics.
First to get to black, jewish, siamese lesbians from Norway wins.
Brachiator
@Don:
No, it’s gay bashing.
The closest thing so far is the demand by some that children of illegal immigrants be denied education, health care, and pushed into clear, permanent outcast status.
gbear
@Raenelle: I disagree. Money is always the excuse they use to cover up the bigotry.
Linda Featheringill
@Jewish Steel:
Actually yes. Jesus was accused of blasphemy. As well as trying to foment an insurrection. And hanging out with known radicals.
ruemara
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Hetero D.P.s do exist. I’ve been in one since SF allowed them.
Cat Lady
@JPL:
By “country”, Cain means “me”, but you knew that.
harlana
@ruemara: How long do you have to be in one (share same residence?) or what does one have to do in order to qualify as a DP? Here, we have common-law marriage but you have to live together several years (not sure what that figure is today) first.
Jewish Steel
@Linda Featheringill: See? You can’t have that. That’ll get you a crucifyin’ every time.
gbear
@RalfW: I’m feeling pretty optomistic that we’re going to vote that sucker down. I think the non-haters are doing a good job of getting the message out, and the Catholic church in MN is doing a pretty good job of making themselves look like raving bigots.
Roger Moore
@gbear:
I think the beauty of it from the GOP standpoint is that they get to pander to multiple constituencies with a single bill. They can please the Jesus freaks, the sadists, and the anti-tax people with one bill.
Martin
@Linda Featheringill: “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king.”
Proof of Jesus’ subversion to the nation was his opposition to paying taxes.
bin Lurkin'
Part of your charm Mr Cole is your remarkable naivete despite your often hard boiled demeanor and language.
In the words of the great philosopher, Lily Tomlin, no matter how cynical you get it’s impossible to keep up.
Amanda in the South Bay
@ruemara:
Ah, I didn’t know cities had their own DPs. California state DPs, defined under Family Code section 297, state:
Does CA recognize your domestic partnership from San Francisco for legal purposes? Just curious.
JPL
@Cat Lady: I turned it off but I think he is talking about the gays since he has before.
stormhit
@RalfW:
Precisely the attitude that results in states that have been historically split but blue-leaning like Michigan turning into conservative havens.
Shinobi
@harlana: I’ve had domestic partner benefits at 2 jobs with my opposite sex partner. (In Illinois) He and I simply had to fill out and get some forms notarized, as well as meet some age and residency requirements. (We have to share a residency and certain bank accounts. Hilariously they give you the form to become domestic partners AND the form to stop being partners at the same time. Awesome.) Though the forms actually seems to depend on who is doing the insuring.
Our partnership does not confer any additional legal rights like a common law marriage would. It seems to work only for the purposes of health insurance. Any other paperwork, survivor ship, wills, power of attorney has to be completed separately. Hence why being domestic partners is such a pain and not the legal equivalent of marriage.
Fortunately the equal protection clause means that if they offer domestic partnerships to gays they also have to offer them to straights. And I’ve been lucky with my employers.
It is not really marriage at all, just a legal statement that you live together and are committed that encourages an employer to sponsor both of your insurance. But it is taxed differently than a spouse’s insurance as well. Technically it is up to UofM if they want to insure domestic partners, many private sector companies do because people like it.
Really domestic partnerships should not need to exist. Marriage rights for all!
harlana
all i wanna know is how i, as a hetero, can get on my bf’s insurance without having to marry him!! can’t somebody splain that to me??!!
(JK, I’ve got my own now – but I’m still curious)
Console
@staci:
Exactly, you can still get elected president if you’re black.
harlana
@Shinobi: Thanks for explaining that. I don’t think we have that here. It’s nice that you can get the bennies, at least.
Shinobi
@harlana: Yeah, though we worry about using them too much. I do not trust insurance companies.
kideni
They’re trying to do the same thing here in Wisconsin, where domestic partnership benefits were first passed only in 2009. Here, domestic partners can be same sex or opposite sex; there’s some sort of registration process. The gay-bashing lobby (a woman who has owned a house with her female partner for over 20 years, although she doesn’t like to talk about it, interestingly enough; I just don’t understand those people) argues that the handful of benefits allowed DPs, as opposed to the hundreds of benefits that accrue to married people, go against the homophobic anti-gay marriage amendment passed in 2006 (and during that campaign, the gay bashers got some people to go along with it by saying that the amendment wouldn’t affect domestic partnerships, that it just meant gays couldn’t marry, so yeah, now they’re going after domestic partnerships just like those of us against the amendment said they would). The UW was hemorrhaging prominent professors, researchers, and administrators to more enlightened places before the DP benefits were allowed, and now I imagine they’ll start losing people again.
Also, when I worked at a book store, bibles and other religious texts were the most frequently stolen books.
Cuppa Cabana
Isn’t the idea of letting a spouse glom on to insurance coverage kind of unfair to begin with? Unfair to single people (of any orientation) I mean.
Cathy W
The city of Ann Arbor, where the university is located, has its own domestic partnership ordinance – yes, open to heterosexuals. You have to file an affidavit with the city clerk stating that you’re not blood related, not in any other marriage or DP, over 18, and in a relationship of mutual support in which you share the necessities of life.
I don’t believe the state recognizes Ann Arbor’s partnerships in any way, based on a very broadly-written anti-gay-marriage amendment that was passed a few years ago, but the university may have chosen to extend benefits to people registered under the local ordinance.
Raenelle
@gbear: “Money is the excuse”–not an economic determinist, I see.
Comrade Dread
Oh, we won’t be that far behind you guys if the GOP gets their way. I can easily see a GOP health care ‘reform’ law getting rid of government benefits and employer based insurance for all; dumping us all into a “free market” wasteland where the corporate insurers can sentence someone to death via denial of coverage or fine print.
The Randian paradise will be a great boon for contract lawyers.
Michael D.
In semi-related news, I see Kim Kardshin is just about done withher first traditional marriage.
But really, it’s probably because he found out he could gay marry in Iowa.
Svensker
@RalfW:
Yeah, because these days jobs for linguistics professors are just falling out of the trees.
Silver Owl
Seems the House of Reps at both state and fed levels in this era can surely be renamed the Human Slaughter House. Behind every slaughter attempt is a rabid gaggle of killing republicans.
beergoggles
In better news, one bigot down: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/state_sen_forrester_on_life_support
Gex
This is one of the ways Jesse Ventura was ahead of his time. He was proposing dropping same-sex couple benefits to “save money” back when we weren’t even in a recession. And you hit on the obvious retort which is “why not cut all partner benefits? The savings from opposite sex partner benefits vastly outweighs the savings from same sex partner benefits.”
Gex
@Cuppa Cabana: Unfair, except that partner benefits probably save taxpayers money. My unemployed partner can either be on my benefits OR she can be on MNCare supported by tax payers.
The reason we give benefits to couples in marriage is because the spouse becomes the first line of social support and security for the other and buffers the government and tax payers from costs.
Brachiator
@Michael D.:
Let’s see now. Gay marriage: threat to the fabric of society. Faux celebrity marriage lasting 72 days: just one of those things that didn’t work out. What a country.