During the long debate running up to the referendum that ultimately banned gay marriage and civil unions in Wisconsin, the fascist PIGS who are so opposed to gay marriage claimed again and again that banning civil unions or gay marriage would not--repeat NOT--have an effect on partner benefits, claiming that this was just rhetoric to scare the voting public at large.
Well, it appears as if the right wing bastards who proposed this are as dishonest as they are bigoted. The appellate court in Michigan recently ruled that it would be unconstitutional under Michigan's gay marriage ban to pay partnership benefits to those individuals who work for the State of Michigan.
Public universities and state and local governments would violate the state constitution by providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge who said universities and governments could provide the benefits.
"The marriage amendment's plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose," the court wrote. *
I TOLD YOU SO!
Let's face it. The ultimate goal of the Christian right and of judges such as these is the eradication of homosexuals, a sort of cultural cleansing. If they can keep gays and lesbians repressed through legal means I'm sure they will do so. And if legal means don't work I suspect that at some time in the future they would pass laws declaring gays and lesbians to be non citizens, and finally subhumans, to be beaten and eradicated at whim. Think Nazi Germany.
As I've said before when fascist institutions, when bigots, want to test their muscle they almost invariably choose two groups to persecute: Jews and homosexuals, followed shortly by women and other convenient scapegoats. The actions of this "Peoples Court" are little more than legalized bigotry, homophobic at its worse: a small decision, by small judges, concerning a small-minded amendment to a small state's constitution. And if you don't think that I am using the word small in the most derogatory manner possible you'd better guess again.