 ccrp poll same sex benefits appeal poll overview attorneys for governor snyder say a state ban on health insurance for domestic partners of some public employees does not target anyone while acknowledging the law seeks to enshrine workplace benefits as a right afforded only to heterosexual couples and their families attorney general bill schuette s office laid out its defense of the public employee domestic partner restriction act in a federal court filing asking us district court judge david lawson to dismiss the lawsuit filed by five samesex couples representing snyder in the lawsuit schuette rsquo s office wrote that michigan s 2004 gay marriage ban is the basis for upholding the law prohibiting cities counties school districts and community colleges from extending health insurance and other fringe benefits to the unmarried gay or straight partners of their workers by limiting benefits that are traditionally associated with marriage the act seeks to protect the unique status of marriage in law assistant attorney general margaret nelson wrote in a court filing it ensures that such benefits only extend to spouses dependents and family if extended beyond its confines marriage loses its central place in june lawson issued a temporary injunction halting enforcement of the law saying it violates the equal protection clause of the us constitution the state is now seeking a final ruling snyder has defended the ban as a step taken to rein in spending on public employee benefits friday rsquo s court filing said the law was designed to further michigan s marriage amendment union of one man and one woman and to ensure fiscal responsibility in government by limiting health insurance to the spouses of employees and to either their dependents or their family members the law does not apply to the constitutionally autonomous michigan civil service commission or public universities new poll question do you feel a federal judge should be able to nullify the same sex benefit law passed in michigan yes no undecided to vote in this poll click on this link  do you feel a federal judge should be able to nullify the same sex benefit law passed in michigan  give us your opinion by clicking on add new comment after you vote previous poll question should congress pass a bill requiring food stamp recipients to show a photo id when purchasing groceries yes 91 no 9 undecided 0 there were three comments made on the poll comment 1 require photo id one on the other comments stated we don t need excessive laws and regulations that limit our liberty and i totally agree with that sentiment the problem is that he she misses the point when he she ignores the fact that the misuse and abuse of food stamp benefits is a wasteful use of fiscal resources passing a law that stops fraud and abuse is a good law and would be a responsible move on the part of congress comment 2 photo id my problem with all of these new laws is that every time you pass a new law you take a freedom away somewhere down the road and the end result is a stronger stronger and more overpowering centralized government america did not become the the greatest nation in history by legislating everything under the sun to the contrary it is the lack of regulation and the taxation that tends to accompany regulation that truly promotes freedom and or life liberty and the pursuit of happiness we do not need any more new laws comment 3 id to purchase food stamps and voting this is a no brainer the naacp just had a protest rally about id s required for voting and they required all in attendance to produce a valid picture id the government can pay to have the picture taken when applicant applies and provide this on the food stamp card many require photo id with your credit card this is no different during check out this then provides another photo id for voting reduction in fraud would pay for the whole thing well worth it don t know how anyone who is sane can argue against it   all emails addresses  