Court: Gay marriage ban affects partner benefits | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Court: Gay marriage ban affects partner benefits | Freep.com | Detroit Free Press


Mich. Supreme Court says public employees can't share health care with same-sex partners
BY DAWSON BELL • FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU • May 7, 2008


An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.


The court, on a vote of 5-2, found that language in the amendment prohibiting recognition of other unions “for any purpose” includes a ban on the extension of benefits to gay and lesbian partners of public employees. By providing benefits to same sex domestic partners, employers recognize those relationships in a way indistinguishable from the way marriage is recognized, the court found.


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.”


But he said it’s not clear what’s next for advocates of gay and lesbian rights. The amendment could be challenged in federal court, but that risks the possibility of another adverse ruling that would affect all 50 states, he said.


“The only alternative may be just leaving,” Olson said, “joining the exodus of people who are just getting out of Michigan.”


The immediate impact on public employers is likely to be less dramatic. Many who had provided same sex benefits before 2004 revised their policies in the wake of the amendment’s adoption and earlier interpretations by Attorney General Mike Cox and the courts.



The Ann Arbor Public Schools, which formerly offered same sex benefits, now permit employees to use an “other qualified benefit election” under which a domestic partner can be covered, said spokeswoman Liz Margolis. About 15 of the district’s 2,000 eligible employees have made the designation, Margolis said, about the same number as previously signed up for same sex partner benefits.


Similar actions have been taken by several universities, including U-M and MSU, where several of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are employed.


The court majority was formed by Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and Justices Stephen Markman, Maura Corrigan, Elizabeth Weaver and Robert Young Jr. Dissenting were Justices Michael Cavanagh and Marilyn Kelly.