« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit posts one today | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals posts two today »

Monday, April 04, 2005

Ind. Law - More on "Impact of same sex marriage ban in Ohio and Michigan Constitutions may portend Indiana issues"

This ILB entry from March 24th discussed the problems that may result from the ban on providing any of the "legal incidences of marriage" to unmarried couples, as contained in subsection (b) of SJR 7. Problems in Ohio and Michigan were cited. Here is the wording of SJR 7's subsection (b):

(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.
Today the NY Times contains this article headlined "Gay Couples File Suit After Michigan Denies Benefits." Some quotes:
In November, Michigan voters, along with those in 12 other states, approved legislation to define marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. On March 16, Michigan's attorney general, Mike Cox, took that one step further, ruling that passage of the constitutional amendment meant that gay and lesbian state workers should be ineligible for health benefits for their partners in future contracts.

Michigan is not the only state in which a battle over the rights of same-sex partners is under way. But it has become the focus of attention with the filing of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union in which 21 same-sex couples are asking the state courts to clarify whether the amendment's passage means the loss of their benefits.

"A lot hinges on what happens in the case in Michigan," said Jeremy Bishop, program director for National Pride at Work, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s constituency group for gay workers. "If the courts rule unfavorably for us, then I can well imagine the right wing taking the same argument to all 13 states that passed these amendments last year." * * *

The first legal challenge to the amendments began in Michigan solely by chance, Mr. Glenn said, because a Kalamazoo city commissioner asked for an opinion from the attorney general about that city's workers.

"I do not believe that the voters of Michigan would have passed this amendment if they knew that it would mean taking away health benefits from same-sex partners," said Kari Moss, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which has filed suit against the governor in an effort to overturn the attorney general's interpretation.

Advocates for gay rights have argued since the amendment's passage in Michigan that proponents operated a kind of bait-and-switch on voters, pretending that they wanted only to strengthen the traditional concept of marriage when they were actually intending to roll back the rights that gay Americans have won over the decades. * * *

Meanwhile, supporters of traditional-marriage amendments are carrying the cause to more states. On Tuesday, Kansas residents will vote on an amendment to their Constitution. In Indiana and Virginia, amendments have passed the legislatures this year, but under the laws of those states they must pass again next year before going to voters. In Tennessee, an amendment will go to voters in November 2006.

Similar legislative efforts are under way in South Carolina, Minnesota and other states.

Not all states, however, are moving to restrict recognition of same-sex relationships. Efforts to ban same-sex unions failed this year in Maryland and Idaho. In Connecticut, a legislative committee has approved a bill allowing such unions.

And in Montana, one of the states that passed an amendment last year, the state university system's Board of Regents recently voted to extend benefits to the same-sex partners of university employees, arguing that such benefits do not constitute recognition of the couples as married.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 4, 2005 02:14 PM
Posted to Indiana Law