Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Means No Family Membership at Community Center

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/012306michFamily.htm

A suburban Detroit same-sex couple is considering legal action after they were told Michigan's constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage means they can't get a family membership at Warren's community center.

Mark Jeason and Martin Murdick have been together about 18 years and have lived in Warren for the past 14 years.

Jeason tells the Detroit News that he was told by center employees that only husbands, wives and their children younger than 18 qualify for family rates.

"We pay taxes. We go to church. We make friends and support our community," Jeason told the paper.

[JWS]

1. that is good

I think it will show the people the practical benifits of supporting monogamous same sex couples despite all the prejudice heaped against them

[davidinalameda]

2. I'm confused by your remarks

what is good?

:shrug:

[JWS]

3. not the ban

but that the gay couple is getting public exposure

[xchrom]

4. subtext: we love your money, but we don't love you.

[kevinbgoode]

5. Frankly, I'm wondering if gays in Michigan

shouldn't be pushing to make sure "marital status" is added (if it isn't already) to public accommodations laws, and then sue the crap out of the community center for favoring legally "married" people and their families over all others. I think their butts should be forced to dump the "family" rates anyway - or offer them to all members of the same household. It's ridiculous to constantly be told that we have to be "single" no matter how many kids we might be raising in order to satisfy their "moral" images, but then pay our taxes to support someone else's family discounts because the state likes them better.

[sui generis]

6. here's the deal

That employee is interpreting the law. If the employee is saying "we believe we would be breaking the law" it's one thing, but they're not. They're just saying they believe they are allowed to discriminate because of the law and by gollee that's what they're gonna do.

Jeason needs to take them to court on exactly that split of the hair. Does it really "mean" that? What is the penalty for failing to enforce that meaning? If there is no penalty, then it's not an enforceable interpretation of that law, and likewise there is nothing barring them from suing the community center.

I think that employee needs a careful talking to.