A same-sex marriage ban prevents governments and universities in Michigan from providing health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state supreme court ruled Wednesday.
The 5–2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, school districts, and governments in Michigan with policies covering at least 375 gay couples.
Gay rights advocates said the ruling was devastating but were confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care.
The ban, a constitutional amendment approved in November 2004, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage ''or similar union for any purpose.''
The court ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar because they're the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of gender and lack of a close blood connection.
Voters ''hardly could have made their intentions clearer,'' Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law's ''for any purpose'' language.
Dissenting justices Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanagh countered that statements made by backers of the measure before the election suggest they only intended to prohibit same-sex marriage, not take away employment benefits.
The dissent also noted that gay partners who qualify for health care aren't given other benefits of marriage -- equal rights to property, for instance.
''It is an odd notion to find that a union that shares only one of the hundreds of benefits that a marriage provides is a union similar to marriage,'' Kelly wrote.
The ruling is believed to be one of the first from a state high court interpreting the scope of gay marriage bans.
Alaska courts ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny benefits. Ohio courts found that domestic violence laws don't conflict with a ban on gay marriage.
Numerous states, however, have yet to grapple with how their gay marriage bans apply to same-sex partner benefits.
At least 27 states have passed constitutional bans, mostly since 2004 in response to gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts. At least 18 of those states, including Michigan, have broader amendments that also prohibit the recognition of civil unions or same-sex partnerships.
''It's a sad day in Michigan when we decide which children and which families are valuable enough to cover,'' said Tom Patrick, 50, who gets health insurance through his partner, Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University.
The Patricks joined 20 other gay couples and filed a lawsuit in 2005 when Republican attorney general Mike Cox interpreted Michigan's measure as making unconstitutional same-sex benefits at the city of Kalamazoo and elsewhere.
Sixteen plaintiffs worked for employers who offered same-sex benefits. Another five were employed by the state, which in 2004 agreed to start providing same-sex benefits but delayed them until courts could clear up their legality.
Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm's administration is reviewing the ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which represented the couples, said the ruling was ''flawed and unfortunate'' and pledged to work with public employers to write ''neutral'' policies to ensure continuing health coverage.
It remains to be seen whether the revised policies will be challenged in court.
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and co-writer of the 2004 measure, said the legality of the new policies depends on whether they're written broadly enough to cover many other unmarried employees.
The ACLU is weighing whether a federal lawsuit is warranted, while Cox applauded the decision. (David Eggert, AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
Comments that do not concern specific articles in The Advocate or on Advocate.com will not be posted or published. See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.
Home | Contact | Current Issue | LGBT Community Partners | Staff
Advertise With Us | Jobs | Help
Subscribe: Print Edition Digital Edition | Subscriber Services: Print Edition Digital Edition
Visit our Websites
Out.com | OutTraveler.com | HIVPlusMag.com | Alyson.com | Gay.com | PlanetOut.com
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Community Guidelines | Legal Notice
Advocate.com © 2008 PlanetOut Inc. All Rights Reserved.
