Where do they stand on the issues?

By The Associated Press,

Associated Press writers Ann Sanner and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this story.

-A look at where Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain stand on a selection of issues as the national party conventions affirm their presidential nominations and launch the fall campaign:

ABORTION

McCain: Opposes abortion rights. Has voted for abortion restrictions permissible under Roe v. Wade, and now says he would seek to overturn that guarantee of abortion rights while being open to a running mate who supports abortion rights. Would not seek constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

Obama: Favors abortion rights.

AFGHANISTAN

McCain: Favors unspecified boost in U.S. forces.

Obama: Would add about 7,000 troops to the U.S. force of 36,000, bringing the reinforcements from Iraq. Has threatened unilateral attack on high-value terrorist targets in Pakistan as they become exposed, “if Pakistan cannot or will not act” against them.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

McCain: The co-author of McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, he plans to run his general campaign with public money and within its spending limits. He has urged Obama to do the same. He applied for federal matching funds for primaries but later turned them down so he could spend more than the limits. Federal Election Commission belatedly approved his decision to bypass the primary funds, but rejected McCain’s claim that he needed no such approval. McCain accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists.

Obama: The presidential campaign’s fundraising champion has brought in $390 million. He plans to raise private money for his general election, despite his proposal last year to accept public financing and its spending limits if the Republican nominee does, too. Obama refuses to accept money from federal lobbyists and has instructed the Democratic National Committee to do the same for its joint victory fund, an account that would benefit the nominee. Obama does accept money from state lobbyists and from family members of federal lobbyists.

CUBA

McCain: Ease restrictions on Cuba once U.S. is “confident that the transition to a free and open democracy is being made.”

Obama: Ease restrictions on family-related travel and on money Cuban-Americans want to send to their families in Cuba. Open to meeting new Cuban leader Raul Castro without preconditions. Ease trade embargo if Havana “begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change.”

DEATH PENALTY

McCain: Has supported expansion of the federal death penalty and limits on appeals.

Obama: Supports death penalty for crimes for which the “community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage.” As Illinois lawmaker, wrote bill mandating videotaping of interrogations and confessions in capital cases and sought other changes in system that had produced wrongful convictions.

EDUCATION

McCain: Favors parental choice of schools, including vouchers for private schools when approved by local officials, and right of parents to choose home schooling. More money for community college education.

Obama: Encourage but not require universal pre-kindergarten programs, expand teacher-mentoring programs and reward teachers with higher pay not tied to standardized test scores, in $18 billion plan to be paid for in part by delaying elements of moon and Mars missions. Change No Child Left Behind law “so that we’re not just teaching to a test and crowding out programs like art and music.” Tax credit to pay up to $4,000 of college expenses for students who perform 100 hours of community service a year.

ENERGY

McCain: Favors increased offshore drilling and federal money to help build 45 nuclear power reactors by 2030. Opposes drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed suspending the 18-cent a gallon federal gasoline tax but idea got no traction. Global warming plan would increase energy costs.

Obama: Now would consider limited increase in offshore drilling. Opposes drilling in Arctic reserve. Proposes windfall-profits tax on largest oil companies to pay for energy rebate of up to $1,000. Opposed suspension of the gas tax. Open to tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for short-term relief from high energy costs. Global warming plan would increase energy costs.

GAY MARRIAGE

McCain: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Says same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into legal agreements for insurance and similar benefits, and states should decide about marriage.

Obama: Opposes constitutional amendment to ban it. Supports civil unions, says states should decide about marriage.

GLOBAL WARMING

McCain: Broke with President Bush on global warming. Led Senate effort to cap greenhouse gas emissions; favors tougher fuel efficiency standards. Favors plan that would see greenhouse gas emissions cut by 60 percent by 2050.

Obama: Ten-year, $150 billion program to produce “climate friendly” energy supplies that he’d pay for with a carbon auction requiring businesses to bid competitively for the right to pollute and aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. Joined McCain in sponsoring earlier legislation that would set mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Supports tougher fuel-efficiency standards.

GUN CONTROL

McCain: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. “I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control.”

Obama: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.

HEALTH CARE

McCain: $2,500 refundable tax credit for individuals, $5,000 for families, to make health insurance more affordable. No mandate for universal coverage. In gaining the tax credit, workers could not deduct the portion of their workplace health insurance paid by their employers.

Obama: Mandatory coverage for children, no mandate for adults. Aim for universal coverage by requiring employers to share costs of insuring workers and by offering coverage similar to that in plan for federal employees. Says package would cost up to $65 billion a year after unspecified savings from making system more efficient. Raise taxes on wealthier families to pay the cost.

HOUSING

McCain: Open to helping homeowners facing foreclosure if they are “legitimate borrowers” and not speculators.

Obama: Tax credit covering 10 percent of annual mortgage-interest payments for “struggling homeowners,” scoring system for consumers to compare mortgages, a fund for mortgage-fraud victims, new penalties for mortgage fraud, aid to state and local governments stung by housing crisis, in $20 billion plan geared to “responsible homeowners.”

IMMIGRATION

McCain: Sponsored 2006 bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S., work and apply to become legal residents after learning English, paying fines and back taxes and clearing a background check. Now says he would secure the border first. Supports border fence.

Obama: Voted for 2006 bill offering legal status to illegal immigrants subject to conditions, including English proficiency and payment of back taxes and fines. Voted for border fence.

IRAN

McCain: Favors tougher sanctions, opposes direct high-level talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Obama: Initially said he would meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions, now says he’s not sure “Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now.” But says direct diplomacy with Iranian leaders would give U.S. more credibility to press for tougher international sanctions. Says he would intensify diplomatic pressure on Tehran before Israel feels the need to take unilateral military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

IRAQ

McCain: Opposes scheduling a troop withdrawal, saying latest strategy is succeeding. Supported decision to go to war, but was early critic of the manner in which administration prosecuted it. Was key backer of the troop increase. Willing to have permanent U.S. peacekeeping forces in Iraq.

Obama: Spoke against war at start, opposed troop increase. Voted against one major military spending bill in May 2007; otherwise voted in favor of money to support the war. Says his plan would complete withdrawal of combat troops in 16 months. Initially had said a timetable for completing withdrawal would be irresponsible without knowing what facts he’d face in office.

SOCIAL SECURITY

McCain: “Nothing’s off the table” when it comes to saving Social Security.

Obama: Would raise payroll tax on wealthiest by applying it to portion of income over $250,000. Now, payroll tax is applied to income up to $102,000. Rules out raising the retirement age for benefits.

STEM CELL RESEARCH

McCain: Supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.

Obama: Supports relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.

Taxes

McCain: Pledged not to raise taxes, then equivocated, saying nothing can be ruled out in negotiating compromises to keep Social Security solvent. Twice opposed Bush’s tax cuts, at first because he said they were tilted to the wealthiest and again because of the unknown costs of Iraq war. Now says those tax cuts, expiring in 2010, should be permanent. Proposes cutting corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Promises balance budget in first term, says that is unlikely in his first year.

Obama: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes. $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families. Eliminate tax-filing requirement for older workers making under $50,000. A mortgage-interest credit could be used by lower-income homeowners who do not take the mortgage-interest deduction because they do not itemize their taxes.

TRADE

McCain: Free trade advocate.

Obama: Seek to reopen North American Free Trade Agreement to strengthen enforcement of labor and environmental standards. In 2004 Senate campaign, called for “enforcing existing trade agreements,” not amending them.

—

Associated Press writers Ann Sanner and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this story.

Where do the Presidential Candidates stand on the issues?

The election is moving like a freight train toward November, we have finally learned who Barack Obama has chosen for a running mate; the Senator from Delaware: Joseph Biden as well as John McCain’s pick, Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.  We thought the Olympics ended in Beijing and but news coverage was transformed from China to Denver for the DNC Convention and then to Minneapolis-St. Paul for the RNC Convention. Let the real games begin.  With this said, as we try to sift though the talking points and the messages from both sides of the aisle, maybe we should examine for ourselves where the candidates stand on the issues they claim to know so much about.  This link of provided to the Associated Press, look and compare for yourself: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/08issues/index.html?SITE=CAVIC

Confusion at the polls again!

In recent elections there has been questions swarming around whether a person needs photo ID or not.  Here is a snippit from Michigan’s Secretary of State website addressing that very question.  Today is the Michigan Primary. Voting is not just our right, it is our responsibility as citizens. 

If you are registered and do not have ID in your possession, you can still vote by signing an affidavit!

 Now get out and VOTE!

Info courtesy of Michigan’s Secretary of State website!

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdcr/finalvotingbrochure2006_174738_7.pdf

 

Do I have to show identification before I can vote?

 

 You must show identification only if, (1) you

registered to vote by mail; and (2) you have never

voted in Michigan, i.e. you are a first-time voter.

Examples of valid identification (ID) include: (1)

any state driver’s license with photo or personal

ID card with photo; (2) student ID card with photo;

(3) military ID card with photo; (4) employee ID

with photo; (5) credit or automated teller card with

photo; or (6) passport, or government issued photo

ID card.

 

First-time voters must appear in person to vote

the first time, unless: (1) you hand delivered your

registration form; (2) you are over 60 years of age;

(3) you are disabled; or (4) you are eligible under

the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee

Voting Act.

 

What if my name does not appear on the local clerk’s

list of registered voters?

 

Yes you can vote. Ask for a provisional ballot. A

provisional ballot allows you to fill out a ballot

and have the county, township or city clerk

determine within 6 days whether your ballot can

be counted. To ensure that your ballot is counted,

you must provide identification to your city, county

or township clerk no later than the sixth calendar

day after the election.

 

I received an absentee ballot, but I want to vote in

person; can I?

 

Yes. If possible, bring your absentee ballot with

you to the polling place. If you don’t have your

absentee ballot, you still may vote. With or

without your absentee ballot, you will be asked to

complete an affidavit stating that you received an

absentee ballot but did not vote using your

absentee ballot.

 

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) was

established in 1965 to secure the full enjoyment of civil

rights guaranteed by law and the State Constitution through

the elimination of unlawful discrimination.

MDCR has both jurisdiction and interest in preserving the

right of all citizens to participate equally in the voting

process regardless of religion, race, color, national origin,

sex, age, marital status, or disability.

 

If you have concerns while casting your ballot:

 

FIRST: contact your city, township or county

clerk’s office and ask them to help you resolve

the problem. If you do not know how to contact

your clerk, visit: http://www.sospublius.org or

call the Michigan Bureau of Elections at

1-800-292-5973 and ask for the phone number

to your city, township or county clerk’s office.

SECOND: contact the Election Protection

Coalition at 1-866-OUR-VOTE

(1-866-687-8683) or visit http://www.ep365.org

and request assistance with resolving your

issue.

THIRD: contact the Michigan Bureau of

Elections at 1-800-292-5973. If your local clerk’s

office is unwilling or unable to resolve the issue,

call the Michigan Bureau of Elections and ask them

to help you resolve the problem.

For immediate assistance related to problems voting

in the Detroit area you may also contact the Detroit

Branch of the NAACP at: (313) 871-2087.

 

Michigan Department of Civil Rights

Lansing Executive Office

Capital Tower Building

110 W. Michigan Ave, Suite 900

Lansing, MI 48933

Detroit Executive Office

Cadillac Place

3054 West Grand Boulevard, Suite 3-600

Detroit, MI 48202

For more information:

1-800-482-3604 or http://www.mi.gov/mdcr

TTY: (877) 878-8464

What’s Your Take???

Flint police cracking down on saggy pants

Ben Schmitt
Special to the State Journal

July 9, 2008

Flint residents now have to watch their butts because Police Chief David Dicks is on the lookout.

Dicks, who took over the department last month on an interim basis, announced that his officers would start arresting people wearing saggy pants that expose skivvies, boxer shorts or bare bottoms.

“Some people call it a fad,” Dicks told the Free Press this week while patrolling the streets of Flint. “But I believe it’s a national nuisance. It is indecent and thus it is indecent exposure, which has been on the books for years.”

On June 27, the chief issued a departmental memorandum telling officers: “This immoral self expression goes beyond freedom of expression.”

The crime, he says, is disorderly conduct or indecent exposure, both misdemeanors punishable by 93 days to a year in jail and/or fines up to $500.

Dicks, 41, broke down his interpretation of the laws as such: Pants pulled completely below the buttocks with underwear showing is disorderly conduct; saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure, and saggy pants, not completely below the buttocks, with underwear exposed results in a warning.

The American Civil Liberties Union is already scrutinizing the enforcement, something Dicks fully expected. But he said he’s not backing down until the pants stop falling down.

Still, as of Tuesday, no one had been arrested for saggy pants.

“We want to put the word out before we take aggressive action,” he said.

On Monday, a Free Press reporter and videographer rode with the chief as he confronted teens sporting the sag look. He issued verbal warnings to several people and said the style also gives police probable cause to search those wearing no-rise jeans.

As he drove through Flint’s north and east sides, he flipped on the flashing lights of his departmental-issued Chevy Tahoe as he stopped a shirtless young man walking in the street with saggy shorts and exposed boxers.

“Did you hear about the law?” the chief asked.

“I heard about it the other day,” the man responded.

“I’m gonna issue a warning. I need you to get a belt because it’s indecent exposure,” the chief said to the twentysomething man on Delaware and N. Franklin. “Spread the word, put your shirt on and don’t expose your underwear.”

During another stop, Dicks marveled at the steps a man took to wear his pants low.

“This guy had a belt on but he’d rather have his belt on around his thighs than above his waist,” he said. “If no one tells him it’s against the law, he’ll never know.”

Different opinions

Flint is often called one of the most violent cities in America, however, in recent years, it has seen a drop in homicides.

A city of about 120,000, dwindling jobs and a dwindling population have left an aging, retired sector, older blue-collar workers, a few middle-age professionals and youths. And depending on who you talk to about sagging, those within each generation don’t necessarily put their pants on the same way.

“If I pay for my pants, I should be able to wear them how I want to,” said 16-year-old Montez Phifer, taking a break from playing hoops in the city Monday. “Everyone thinks it’s gangster, but it’s a fashion. Nothing more.”

His friend, Lorenzo Johnson, 14, said his mother warned him about the chief’s stance on sagging.

“I pulled them up to respect her,” he said. “When she left I pulled them back down.”

Another friend, Senita Abrams, 18, said: “I think it’s cute when boys sag.”

Down the street, 32-year-old Saneka Nichols weighed in.

“The sagging is out of control,” she said. “It went from a style to a disruption. The chief has a good idea. I’m not saying people should go to jail, but maybe they should do community service.

“If you don’t want to pick up your pants, pick up for the neighborhood. How’s that sound?”

Greg Gibbs, a lawyer and chair of the ACLU Flint chapter, said the crackdown sounds like a “vast waste of resources.”

“We are concerned that the enforcement of the chief’s memo may lead to some constitutional violations on a case-by-case basis due to the failure of his memo to define what constitutes indecent exposure,” Gibbs said. “From a First Amendment standpoint, I still have to crack the books to find out what the courts have said on this issue.”

Flint’s not the first city to take a look at policing the exposure of underwear. Pontiac, Auburn Hills, Atlanta and cities across the nation have debated the issue. But Dicks makes the assertion that wearing pants below the waist is a crime and can give police probable cause to search saggers for other crimes, such as weapon and drug possession.

The sagging style

Dan Henson knows all about the style of sagging. He’s a manager at Mr. Alan’s clothing store in Hamtramck and a former sagger himself. He said customers frequently come in to buy large-fitting pants that sag.

“I stopped when I was around 21,” he said of wearing his pants low. “But this style has been around for a long time. I think the rap videos and music industry have a lot to do with it. I don’t think this style is going anywhere.”

Michigan ACLU Executive Director Kary Moss said race could become an issue if the chief aggressively enforces the law.

“We will wait and see if this new policy is enforced before we decide to take action,” she said in a statement. “We will be concerned if the policy disproportionately affects African Americans.”

Dicks also scoffed at any suggestions that any enforcement unfairly targets black men and teens.

“This is not a black issue. This is an issue that’s all walks of life,” said Dicks, who is black. “Many people from different ethnic backgrounds and races are doing this fad.”

Ben Schmitt is a staff writer for the Detroit Free Press.

 

GM eliminates retiree health benefits, dividend

The Grand Rapids Press- by Rick Haglund | Detroit Bureau July 15, 2008 08:49AM

DETROIT — General Motors Corp. said today it would cut about 20 percent of its U.S. and Canadian salaried work force costs, eliminate its quarterly dividend and raise as much as $7 billion in cash to bolster its sagging automotive operations.

Chairman Rick Wagoner said health care coverage for GM retirees over the age of 65 in the United States will be eliminated as of Jan. 1. But retirees and surviving spouses will receive a pension increase to help offset the cost of supplemental Medicare coverage.

GM also will defer $1.7 billion in scheduled payments in this year and in 2009 for a newly established health care trust for hourly workers. And the automaker will cut an additional 150,000 units of truck production by the end of next year.

We are responding aggressively to the challenges of today’s U.S. auto market,” Wagoner said in a speech to GM’s workers.

The automaker has about 34,000 salaried workers and 55,000 hourly workers in the United States. Its sole West Michigan operation is a metal stamping plant at 300 36th St. SW in the Grand Rapids suburb, Wyoming.

No plant closings were announced. Wagoner said the cuts announced today will save the automaker about $10 billion in cash.

GM has been battling assertions by Wall Street analysts it might have to file for bankruptcy because of rapidly declining sales and mounting financial losses in the wake of gasoline prices that have jumped to $4 a gallon in recent weeks.

The automaker’s sales have fallen 16.3 percent in the first half of this year as the market for the automaker’s pickup trucks and SUVs has dried up. GM has lost $3.3 billion so far this year. GM’s stock closed Monday at $9.38 a share, the lowest close in more than 50 years.

With truck sales collapsing, GM said last month it would close truck plants in Moraine, Ohio; Janesville, Wis.; Oshawa, Ontario; and Toluca, Mexico. The automaker also said it was reviewing its Hummer plant for a possible sale, which most analysts expect.

Nevertheless, rumors that GM might file for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reached a crescendo last week, prompting Wagoner to deny in a speech in Dallas last week that the automaker was even considering such a filing.

Mark LaNeve, GM’s sales and marketing chief, also sent a letter to the automaker’s dealers last week, denying that GM was considering elimination of any brands beyond the possible sale of Hummer.

Analysts have long contended that GM has too many brands and not enough financial resources to develop and market its eight car-and-truck brands in the U.S. market.

 

UM-Flint Announces Tuition for 2008-2009 Academic Year

• By Mel Serow
• Published 06/20/2008
• University News

 

Tuition at the University of Michigan-Flint for the 2008/2009 academic year will increase less than 6%, while institution financial aid will jump almost 8%.  The University of Michigan Board of Regents approved a 5.9% increase for in-state, full-time undergraduate students at the June 19 meeting.  This latest increase is the lowest at the University of Michigan-Flint in the past three years. The average tuition increase at a Michigan public university last year was more than 10%. 

 

“I am pleased that in spite of rising fixed costs, we were able to keep the tuition increase at one of the lowest levels in years,” stated Interim Chancellor Jack Kay.  “The University of Michigan-Flint offers an outstanding educational experience for students, and we will maintain the exceptional level of teaching and scholarship that we are known for throughout the region.”  

 

A typical in-state, full-time undergraduate student with 12 credit hours will pay an average of $3,714 in tuition and fees per semester this coming year. The average tuition increase for in-state, graduate students will be 4.9%.  The cost of tuition and fees for graduate students varies from program to program. 

 

Despite continuing cost-cutting efforts, the university is preparing for significant spikes in operational expenses during the coming year. The escalating price of gasoline alone will have a considerable effect on the university.  Campus fuel costs are estimated to surge 57.4%.  Other increases include:

 

-          Health insurance to increase by 9%

-          Utilities will increase by 6%  

-          Dental insurance to increase by 4%

 

The continued growth of the university and the opening of the new residence hall this fall have created the need to expand the hours of operation across the campus. The additional hours will impact the budgets of several key departments that provide support services.

 

“The university continues to operate under enormous budget constraints,” stated Interim Chancellor Kay.  “Since 1987, our state funding has steadily declined from 67% to 29% of total operating revenues.  We are committed to making quality education accessible to all citizens even during these tough economic times.”

Message from President Coleman

 

Dear Campus Community:

I am pleased to announce that I am recommending Dr. Ruth J. Person, an alumna of the University of Michigan, as the seventh Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Flint.  Dr. Person will begin her appointment August 18, pending approval by the Board of Regents. 

Since her appointment as chancellor of IU Kokomo in 1999, Dr. Person led the campus through a strong period of growth.  During her tenure, IU Kokomo implemented a strategic plan, added new academic programs, completed a $3 million fundraising campaign, and constructed an award-winning science facility. Dr. Person also oversaw the reversal of a seven-year enrollment decline, and the campus now has record enrollment of full-time and traditional-age students.  

Throughout her impressive career, Dr. Person has had rich and diverse experiences in higher education.  She served for four years as vice president for academic affairs and professor of business administration at Angelo State University in San Angelo, Texas. She also held positions as vice president for academic affairs at Ohio’s Ashland University, associate vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Missouri–St. Louis, dean of the College of Library Science at Clarion University in Pennsylvania, and associate dean and faculty member of the School of Library and Information Science at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. As an American Council on Education (ACE) Fellow, Person also worked as chief academic officer with the Arizona Board of Regents.

Dr. Person earned her bachelor’s degree from Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania and received both her master’s degree and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. She also holds an M.S. degree in administration from George Washington University School of Business and Public Management.

I would like to thank the Search Advisory Committee for their splendid work and dedication during the last several months.  I am also deeply grateful to Interim Chancellor Jack Kay for his steady leadership during this period of transition

Please join me as we welcome Dr. Person to the University of Michigan-Flint.

Sincerely, 

Mary Sue Coleman
President

Kennedy diagnosed with malignant brain tumor

Kennedy diagnosed with malignant brain tumor

Condition found after he was treated for seizure over weekend, doctors say

BREAKING NEWS

The Associated Press

updated 1:31 p.m. ET, Tues., May. 20, 2008

BOSTON – Sen. Edward Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor.

Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday that preliminary biopsy results showed a malignant glioma in the left parietal-lobe. It was detected after Kennedy, 76, was airlifted to Boston on Saturday after having a seizure at his Cape Cod home.

The usual course of treatment includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy, but Kennedy’s treatment will be decided after more tests.

“He has had no further seizures, remains in good overall condition and is up and walking around the hospital,” said a joint statement issued by Dr. Lee Schwamm, vice chairman of the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Dr. Larry Ronan, Kennedy’s primary care physician.

Kennedy’s wife and children have been with him each day since he was hospitalized but have made no public statements.

 

Malignant gliomas are a type of brain cancer diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year — and the most common type among adults. It’s a starting diagnosis: How well patients fare depends on what specific tumor type is determined by further testing.

Mich. high court says gay partners can’t get health benefits (How will this effect our Campus Community? )

Will there be a hemorrhage of diversity and intelligence to friendlier waters?

5/7/2008, 12:40 p.m. EDT

By DAVID EGGERT

The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks governments and state universities from offering health insurance to the partners of gay workers.

The 5-2 decision affirms a state Court of Appeals ruling.

Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments in Michigan have benefits policies covering at least 375 gay couples. Some of the plans began as far back as the early 1990s.

After the appeals court ruled in February 2007, universities and governments rewrote their policies to try to comply with the gay marriage ban — so the effect of Wednesday’s decision was unclear.

The new policies no longer specifically acknowledge domestic partnerships but make sure “other qualified adults,” including gay partners, are eligible for medical and dental care. The adults have to live together for a certain amount of time, be unmarried, share finances and be unrelated.

The voter-approved law, which passed 59 percent to 41 percent, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.”

Justice Stephen Markman, writing for the majority, said that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren’t identical, they are similar. He was joined by Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and Justices Maura Corrigan, Elizabeth Weaver and Robert Young Jr.

Dissenting Justices Michael Cavanagh and Marilyn Kelly said the constitutional amendment prohibits nothing more than same-sex marriages or similar unions. They argued that circumstances surrounding the election suggest Michigan voters didn’t intent to take away people’s benefits.

Republican Attorney General Mike Cox in 2005 interpreted the measure to make unconstitutional existing domestic partner policies at the city of Kalamazoo and elsewhere.

Twenty-one gay couples sued, saying the amendment was about marriage and preserving the status quo — not taking away benefits from gays. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm sided with the couples.

The couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan argued the ballot committee that sponsored Proposal 2 “consistently and repeatedly” assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.

But Markman noted that both supporters and opponents of the amendment said ahead of time that benefits would be prohibited by the amendment.

“The role of this Court is not to determine who said what about the amendment before it was ratified, or to speculate about how these statements may have influenced voters,” he wrote. “Instead, our responsibility is, as it has always been in matters of constitutional interpretation, to determine the meaning of the amendment’s actual language.”

Kelly countered that gay partners allowed to get health insurance aren’t granted other rights, responsibilities or benefits of marriage — equal rights to property, for instance.

“It is an odd notion to find that a union that shares only one of the hundreds of benefits that a marriage provides is a union similar to marriage,” she wrote.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

© 2008 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In memory of Mildred Loving (What will you do to make your world a better place for all?)

From www.Ourfuture.org

By Rick Perlstein

May 5th, 2008 – 1:53pm ET  

 

Mildred Loving was a black woman who married a white man in Virginia, which was against the law in the state. She took her case all the way up to the Supreme Court, which struck down interracial marriage bans in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision. Today it was announced that she has died at the age of 68. But what her AP obituary doesn’t mention—hopefully others will correct the oversight—is that last year Mildred Loving came out foursquare for marriage equality for same-sex couples as well, and insisted you should, too.

 

 

Here was her statement:

 

 

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed.

The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared:
 “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a courtcase that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.