- President Fallon releases statement concerning the court of appeals ruling, basically saying he’s disappointed in the ruling. He says he supports the appeal and that they will continue to provide support through the end of bargained contracts or through the end of the year – whichever is longer. He says EMU remains committed to providing full benefits and equal services to all employees. “This is about more than just recruitment and retention. It is the right thing to do.”
The EMU-AAUP also has stated they feel these rights are important and they are doing everything they can to make sure they are maintained.
Thank you President Fallon and the EMU-AAUP. I applaud your remarks and attention to this subject.
- Kayla posted the video of the mock of EMU’s Alma Matter by the late night players. Here’s a hillarious video by the late night players of “Anagrams of EMU”. I should warn you.. I would rate the video PG-13ish so don’t watch it at work.
- Bowen Fieldhouse has reopened after repairs due to the broken water pipes. I’ve walked by it numerous times and it’s mighty nice!
- The Student Government released the results of the Dept of Public Safety open parking spot survey they conducted. Click on EMU Parking Survey Results under Latest News. It’s interesting to read and may help some of us with our parking strategies. (edit: thanks EagleTalon for correcting this)
- Did you know we have a EMU Student Film Festival? I sure didn’t and I stumbled on it by accident. According to their myspace page this years film festival is scheduled for March 18th this year. . Don’t forget the Ann Arbor Film Festival runs from March 20th to 25th this year.
Welp.. that’s all for me. See, sometimes insomnia pays off because I can write posts like these..
Hey, you can see me in the Anagrams clip! lol.
I’m way up front, next to the girl in yellow. Yes, kind of random. I also ended up in another clip that a girl posted of the show.
Not being a lawyer, I don’t understand the principle of the ruling against domestic partner benefits at all. To my way of thinking, these benefits have nothing to do with where anyone stands on same sex marriage. It’s a NEGOTIATED point in an executed CONTRACT. Both parties to the contract agreed to it. One of the jobs of government is to make sure there is an environment where contracts make sense in the human experience. How does it make sense to micromanage what actually goes in to a contract?
I’m not a lawyer, either, but I do know when a law is made the lawyers all scramble to “set precedent” showing how the law will be interpreted in the future. Mike Cox, being a conservative Republican, is obviously trying to set very conservative precedent. And frankly, I think he stands a good chance of being upheld in the Michigan Supreme Court, when you look at the number of conservatives on that bench.
I know judges are supposed to rule acccording to law, but we all know personal preferences color their thinking.
I have two friends in a domestic partnership. The thing is, one is male, and the other is female. They just did not want to get married, so filed the domestic partnership to share work benefits. If they were to be working for a government institution, would they lose their rights as well? I keep reading “same-sex domestic partnership”. Either way, it’s just ridiculous that this is even an issue. Is it really that important to these people that same sex partners have barriers to health care? Mind your own business.
I am glad that Michigan is finally heading towards the Christian Conservative values that America was founded.
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
I can say that those who support my side of this political debate also see this as a Civil Rights issue.
What happens to the Pastor or Priest arrested for refusing to marry a Gay or Lesbian couple? If we expect Religion to stay out the Government, then Government should stay out policing Religious beliefs.
I am all for granting equal benefits for Gay and Lesbian couples, as long as it falls underneath the appropriate term: Civil Union.
Without the possibility of procreation there can be no logical way to define the Civil Union as anything but a Civil Union.
Before anyone gets upset with me here, please don’t misunderstand.
I am actually quite liberal in my viewpoint in that I see nothing wrong with granting equal benefits for Gay/Lesbian unions versus Marriage. They can both have and enjoy the same benefits and I am ok with that.
But, Eastern Michigan University is simply wrong to keep holding onto the faint hope that what they are doing is somehow in line with the laws in the books. The Michigan citizens voted to define Marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman and they expect University Institutions which receive Tax Money to follow through on that.
I am shocked that President Fallon would put his personal, political agenda, before the will of the American voters and before the rule of law.
My literal mind is unable to process this. I thought “domestic partner” benefits were exactly “civil union” benefits.
Um wow, that’s all I have to say. I really didn’t want this to turn into a debate.
I guess by your logic those who are infertile shouldn’t be allowed to marry, either then. And I guess all those people who supported women suffrage and rights for minorities are “wrong” and should have never done that either.
*rolls eyes*
Once upon a time, it was illegal to harbor or aid fugitive slaves. Would Mr. Law and Order have turned them in? And where’s the obligatory “some of my best friends are…” clause that usually accompanies hate speech?
I think Jeff had more credibility as a troll.
I think you are *all* missing my confusion. What does negotiated domestic partner benefits have to do with marriage? They seem completely distinct to me.
A person can have a different position on domestic partner benefits than he has on marriage.
Susan -
I believe the law stipulates that the state will not respect any institution that is “like marriage” (my Google-fu is failing me when it comes to searching for the exact language). Domestic partnerships, whether they are between hetero- or homosexual couples, previously provided most of the same benefits as marriage – such as being able to get health insurance through a partner’s employer. Private employers (I believe) can still offer such benefits, but public institutions like EMU can’t, even if it does affect heterosexual couples as well.
Wow. I’m with Susan on this one, I think. I have a problem with cloaking ‘resistance to change’ under ‘religious values’–regardless of the letter of the law. I thought religious values were things like: do unto others, love thy neighbor, etc. I do not see what ‘religious values’ has to do with who someone chooses to spend their life with. I think that legislating things like this (who you can share your life/benefits with) runs afoul of separation of church and state. Would it be okay to legislate WHAT religion one adheres to? Of course not. Our country is founded upon freedom of religion (among other things). It seems a small step to allow freedom in choice of partners as well. But then, I’m a woman and have had the right to vote for less than 100 years. Change happens sometimes because it’s the right thing to do–but change almost never happens without struggle. One of Newton’s laws I believe (a body at rest….).
Just as an edit – the parking survey was done by the Dept of Public Safety, and is done about every other month. SG only publicized it a bit more, one of our side jobs that we try to do for students, since parking is the biggest concern we hear from them.
The Echo editorial:
Justice above all else must be sought for student’s death
By Staff Edit / Staff Writer
MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2007
The death of Laura Dickinson was a tragedy, compounded by the alleged involvement of a fellow student. We were saddened and troubled upon hearing of it, and were frustrated in our attempts to find out more about the cause of death prior to the break.
http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?31645