« Ind. Law - More on: "Booksellers incensed over sexual content law" | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Employers Can't Ignore Workplace Bullies" »

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Courts - "Michigan Marriage Amendment Nixes Domestic Partners Benefits"

From an entry this afternoon in the Volokh Conspiracy by Dale Carpenter, law prof. at U. of Minn. Law, headed "Michigan Marriage Amendment Nixes Domestic Partners Benefits":

So said the Michigan Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision today.

By state constitutional amendment in 2004, Michigan voters barred the state from recognizing same-sex marriages. But the awkwardly worded amendment went further: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

The "similar union" language, along with the "for any purpose" language, was enough for the majority to conclude that it prohibited same-sex domestic partners benefits provided by some 20 state universities and municipal entities in the state. From the dissent: "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."

The Michigan decision sets an interpretive precedent that may be followed in the many other states that have banned same-sex marriages and recognition of other relationships "similar" to marriage.

An AP story by David Eggert begins:
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Local governments and state universities in Michigan can't offer health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The court ruled 5-2 that Michigan's 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner policies affecting gay employees at the University of Michigan and other public-sector employers.

The decision affirms a February 2007 appeals court ruling.

Here is the problematic language of SJR 7, the proposed Indiana constitutional amendment, which was not brought up for a vote by the second consecutive General Assembly either in 2007 or 2008:
(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.
For background see this ILB entry from March 19, 2007, which compares the Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio language.

[More] Here is a story by Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press that includes this quote:

Patrick Gillen, a professor at Ave Maria Law School and a co-author of the amendment, said the court’s ruling was “a vindication of the will of people in enacting the marriage amendment.”

Advocates for same sex partner benefits want “same sex partners treated as spouses… to redefine marriage and the family in a very radical way. And the voters recognized that,” Gillen said.

Jessie Olson, an attorney involved in filing the challenge that was rejected by the court Wednesday, said the ruling leaves Michigan “at the bottom of the barrel. We are the worst of the worst of the worst when it comes to civil rights for same sex couples.”

The opinion is now posted on the Michigan Supreme Court website - access it here.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 7, 2008 04:04 PM
Posted to Courts in general