All Michigan couples need health insurance
16 05 08 - 10:48
I am deeply disappointed by the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court prohibiting public employers from offering domestic-partnership benefits to the partners and children of public employees.
When Michigan voters passed a Constitutional amendment in 2004 defining marriage as between one man and one woman, they had no intention of forcing cities and colleges to take away health insurance from the families of their employees in domestic partnerships.
During the campaign, supporters of Proposal 2, the so-called "marriage amendment," repeatedly stated on television and in newspapers the measure would have no effect on the health benefits of unmarried couples and their children.
This decision risks health-care benefits thousands of unmarried, hard-working Michigan couples have earned and have had for years -- and the ones most hurt are the kids. With more than 1 million Michigan residents, including children, already without health benefits, we should be making every effort to get families the insurance they need, not take it away.
Children should not suffer because adults disagree. Regardless of how Michigan citizens feel about unmarried couples, their families deserve the same legal protections and access to health benefits as other people.
WILLIAM W. SHARROW JR.