Proposal 2 Threatens University Domestic Partner Benefits

A couple of months ago, my boyfriend and I were walking from a restaurant back to our hotel in Kansas City, Missouri. After a grueling ten-hour drive from Colorado to Missouri, Darrin and I were thrilled to be out of the car and walking around. Our pleasant evening turned sour when a red pickup truck rolled by and the three or four guys inside screamed "faggots" at us. The truck slowed down, and the passengers continued to scream out various expletives. Darrin and I had to immediately decide our escape plan. Do we walk in the opposite direction of traffic or run back a couple of blocks and cross a four-lane highway to reach an all-night supermarket? This was the third time in as many years that a group of strangers have driven by and correctly identified my sexuality. Although no one ever stepped out of their cars and proceeded to escalate the situation, other GLBT people have not been as fortunate.I have decided to retell this incident in the Monroe Street Journal because of the relationship the paper has had with Open for Business for the past several years. Every October 11, thousands of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and allies celebrate National Coming Out Day. They hold workshops, speak-outs, rallies and other kinds of events all aimed at showing the public that GLBT people are everywhere. In that spirit, the MSJ editors have always graciously agreed to devote a page or two to contributions from gay students here at the Business School.

National Coming Out Day is a little different this year, however. Due to the extensive media coverage on the presidential campaign, many Michigan voters may be unaware of Ballot Proposition 2, a ballot question that may amend the State Constitution. The proposal seeks to declare that "The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose."

These last six words of this should concern all university students, regardless of their personal feelings on marriage. This is very broad language and would seize the authority that the University has in granting domestic partner benefits to gay and non-married straight couples alike. While Mary Sue Coleman has stated that the university "will vigorously defend our right to offer such benefits," the clear language of the ban would allow any party to challenge both public and private entities that offer domestic partner benefits.

Since gay families do not receive the numerous automatic benefits that married couples do, domestic partner benefits are incredibly important. Such benefits also make excellent business sense since they help attract qualified candidates. After three years in a long-distance relationship, my boyfriend will quit his job this spring and move in with me in Phoenix, where I have accepted an offer to work at Honeywell. I have no doubt that he will be able to get a job, but in the interim, he will be able to rely on my employer's domestic partner benefits. Had this not been an option, he would not be able to move to Arizona with me or I would have had to seek employment elsewhere.

Proposition 2 is a poorly written law that will do a great deal of damage. More broadly, however, it speaks to the character of a populace that feels threatened by granting civil rights to all Americans. It is easier for me to write-off isolated incidents where my physical safety has been threatened by homophobes. These are plain acts of ignorance. However, a civil society must reject attempts to use the state charter of governance to codify personal prejudices. To deny equality to all citizens is odious.

Please speak out in favor of tolerance and reject this proposal. Vote No on Prop 2.