Rep to introduce measure opposing same-sex benefits for state workers

Originally printed (Issue - Between The Lines News)

The following story appears on the AP wire this morning. Please contact you local state representatives to oppose this measure and have your family, friends and co-workers do the same. To locate your state representative go to http://www.vote-smart.org. Following the article - Jay Kaplan from the ACLU of Michigan has some working suggestions. Lets stay involved and get our voices heard today on this one folks.

Associated Press, Nov 29, 2004

From Between The Lines Online

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- A state representative said Monday he's working on a measure to oppose health benefits for gay partners of state employees in new contracts for state workers that have been agreed to by the state and five labor unions.

Rep. Ken Bradstreet, R-Gaylord, also said he is writing a letter to Attorney General Mike Cox to ask whether it's legal for the state to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits after Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Bradstreet's resolution, expected to be introduced on Tuesday, would urge Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the Office of the State Employer to refrain from negotiating or approving any state contract with domestic partner health care benefits for same-sex couples.

"It's unfathomable how, before the ballot boxes are hardly put away, some state leaders are going against citizens' wishes to even consider this issue in the labor contract negotiations process," Bradstreet said in a news release.

The state reached an agreement earlier this month with the labor unions on a new contract that take effect Oct. 1, 2005 and includes a 10 percent raise over three years.

The contract already has been overwhelmingly ratified by the United Auto Workers Local 6000, which represents nearly one-third of state workers.

Alan Kilar, legislative liaison for the UAW, said the union reached an agreement with the state in good faith and expects the state to stick with it.

"They agreed to this," he said. "It's a contract and an agreement is an agreement."

A spokesman for House Speaker Rick Johnson, R-LeRoy, said Johnson isn't working behind the scenes on the legislation, but added that a number of House Republicans were upset that the Granholm administration negotiated domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

"Does this have legs? Potentially," Johnson spokesman Keith Ledbetter said.

It's unclear what effect, if any, a resolution would have on state employee contracts that already have been agreed to by several labor unions, but haven't been ratified by all. A decision by the attorney general on the legality of same-sex benefits for state workers would have a greater impact.

All right everyone, here's a proactive thing that we can all do:

1. CALL KEN BRADSTREET'S OFFICE at (517)373-0829 or toll free at (877) KEN-4105 or e-mail him at kbradstreet@house.mi.gov and tell him that you oppose his efforts to introduce a resolution urging the civil service commission to reject any and all provisions of state labor contracts that offer same-sex domestic partner benefits to state employees. He probably is not going to change his mind, but we need to flood his office with as many phone calls as possible, letting him know that not everybody agrees with him.

2. Here's your talking points:

-Bradstreet sent out a press release stating "some state leaders are going against citizens' wishes to even consider this issue in the labor contracts negotiations process." You need to remind him that proponents of Proposal 2 throughout the campaign said that Proposal 2 was "only about marriage....this is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life." (I'm quoting the brochure distributed by Citizens for Protection of Marriage). Spokespersons Marlene Elwell and Kristina Hemphill continuously said throughout the campaign that this Proposal would have no effect on benefits. Even Gary Glenn of the American Family Association was quoted in the press with similar statements. Bradstreet is wrong to say that a majority of Michigan voters in approving Proposal 2, knowingly were also approving the denial of domestic partner benefits- given the messages that they received.

-This resolution if passed would violate the contracts clause of the federal constitution.

-This resolution would interfere with the state government's ability to attract and retain talented and dedicated government workers- because it would prevent the state from offering competitive salary and benefit packages.

-This resolution is discriminatory because it does not provide equal compensation for equal work in state employment.

-TELL YOUR STORY: MAKE IT PERSONAL. If you are a state employee, if you receive domestic partner benefits from another employer, if you have a partner, have children, have a family, talk about how important it is for your family to have access to health care. Let Representative Bradstreet know your moral values- it's wrong to discriminate against people, people who do equal work of other employees are entitled to equal compensation, access to health care is important. IF YOU LIVE IN BRADSTREET'S DISTRICT- which covers Gaylord (Charlevoix, Antrim, Otsego, Montmorency, Alpena and Presque Isle counties)- let him know that you are a constituent and that you vote. Even if you are not his constituent, you pay taxes and you pay his salary.

3. YOU CAN ALSO CONTACT YOUR OWN REPRESENTATIVE AND TELL THEM TO OPPOSE BRADSTREET'S RESOLUTION FOR THE SAME REASONS LISTED ABOVE.

4. Phone calls and e-mails should be sent asap.

WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE ACTIVE AND INVOLVED- LET'S GO!