M a r k D i l l e y

~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~

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

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!