Intented Consequences?

A Michigan appeals court ruled that the state's marriage amendment "prohibits government agencies and public schools from providing health care and other benefits to the same-sex partners of employees if the benefits are modeled on those provided to married couples," according to this Detroit Free Press article. The article notes that almost all of the involve parties agreed that whatever the outcome, there would be an appeal to the State Supreme Court.

I like to hope that these were unintended consequences of the gay marriage ban. I also think that it displays part of the problem with these amendments. Apparently, even though everyone is created equal, they are not entitled to reap the same benefits for the object of their affections, if the object of their affection happens to be the same gender as themselves.

This same problem comes up in the case of wills - and is one of the most common challenges to the validity of wills - that a gay partner is not a natural object of one's affection. As such, the family of the deceased often succeeds in having the wills declared invalid.

I don't care if you approve or disapprove of homosexuality. I do, however, think it's wrong to use the government to hold down a demographic, particularly in the absence of a valid public policy.