Dumb Move, Michigan: Reacting to the Ban on Domestic Partner Benefits

Gov. Rick Snyder (R) bans domestic partner benefits in Michigan this past Thursday.

Let’s take a break from the research blogging for a moment, shall we?

Yesterday, December 22, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder signed a bill banning state agencies from extending domestic partner benefits (Joe. My. God.). This bill threatens the livelihood of many in Michigan, particularly those same-sex couples who, because of the state’s constitution, can’t be married.

Although the debate on the nature of the bill is unsettled, many believe that it will restrict Michigan’s public university system from extending domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples. Given this threat, many faculty members at the University of Michigan have threatened to leave and join universities where their benefits will be assured.

This legislation is blatantly discriminatory. It is a threat to university workers in same-sex relationships, and it is also a threat to Michigan’s public university system and the state as a whole because it has the potential to trigger a brain drain that would weaken Michigan’s intellectual community. Sonya Alvarado, president of the Eastern Michigan University Federation of Teachers, sees this bill more generally as a threat to academic culture. As she says, “The university is about inclusion. The university is about open discussion. This bill just goes against everything that the university is about” (LGBTQ Nation).

We can’t afford to discriminate like this. In these tough economic times, we can’t afford to create legislation that sends the message to brilliant innovators and academics that they don’t belong because of who they love. And, to mirror Alvarado’s sentiments, we can’t afford to create an academic climate built on exclusion and censorship. These principles prevent the sort of scholarship that the world needs because they are absolutely antithetical to what is so great about the academy in the first place: the freedom to take risks, innovate, and discuss difficult topics, regardless of who you are or from where you come.

While I don’t teach, work, or even live in Michigan, I can’t help but to feel like such legislation is a threat against my work. It sends a message that members of the LGBTQ community are minor figures compared to members of the heterosexual community. Given this discriminatory hierarchy, why would anyone bother researching queer issues? This legislation censors the issue before it can ever be discussed.

And given the negative message that this legislation sends about queer issues, it also creates a negative, oppressive culture around the LGBTQ community in general. It is against this oppressive culture that I want to set my research, whether I see it in contemporary America or imperial Britain.