« Ind. Decisions - Federal Judge McKinney rules for environmental activist | Main | Law - History buffs may enjoy story today on filibuster precedent »

Friday, March 18, 2005

Ind. Law - Impact of same-sex ban in Michigan constitution

An editorial yesterday in the Indianapolis Star was headlined "Don't close door on civil unions." It urges:

The proposal as it now stands goes too far -- not only banning same-sex marriages but also closing off even the possibility of civil unions in the future.

Civil unions do not exist in Indiana, and may never be implemented here. But current legislators shouldn't block the elected leaders who will one day follow them from even considering such an accommodation.

The impact of such a ban in the Michigan Constitution, however, as recent stories show, is not simply limited to future generations.

The language of subsection (b) of the Indiana Senate's proposal, SJR 7, reads:

(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. [emphasis added]
Last November the State of Michigan amended its constitution to include the following language:
THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IN MARRIAGE SHALL BE THE ONLY AGREEMENT RECOGNIZED AS MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION FOR ANY PURPOSE.
The day after the proposal was adopted by the voters, the Lansing State Journal published this story, headlined "Proposal 2 supporters taking aim at same-sex benefits: Judges likely to decide fate of ban on gay marriages." A quote:
After months of saying they wouldn't target domestic partner benefits, proponents of traditional marriage who backed Proposal 2 said Wednesday they plan to review benefit policies of all public employers.

Policies that extend health insurance, bereavement leave and other benefits solely to homosexual couples must be changed as employee contracts expire or they'll be in violation of the Michigan Constitution, proponents said.

"Benefits only to homosexuals are a formal recognition of a homosexual relationship as equal or similar to marriage," said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. "And the voters have said they don't want that."

Today the Detroit Free Press is reporting:
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Local governments and the state won't be able to provide benefits for same-sex partners of employees in future contracts now that voters have approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage, the state's attorney general said Wednesday.

In the first legal interpretation of Proposal 2, Attorney General Mike Cox wrote in an opinion that Kalamazoo's policy of offering health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners violates the amendment. Voters passed the measure 59 percent to 41 percent in November.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette is also carrying the above AP story today.

The Kalamazoo Gazette has a story today headlined: "City under fire over same-sex benefits plan Kalamazoo to review policy after attorney general says it violates state constitution." Some quotes:

The attorney general wrote in his 21-page opinion that the city of Kalamazoo's policy gives same-sex relationships "marriage-like" status and "violates the (constitutional) amendment's prohibition against recognizing any 'similar union' other than the union of one man and one woman in marriage."

Cox said that while the amendment did not mention domestic-partner benefits, "one thing that would clearly have been evident to voters was that benefits provided based on the recognition of a 'similar union' were at issue and might be eliminated if the measure passed."

"The city's contracts fall squarely within the scope of what the amendment prohibits," he wrote.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 18, 2005 10:23 AM
Posted to Indiana Law