Michigan Court: No
Same - Sex Benefits
By AP from the
NYTimes on the Web, February 2, 2007
LANSING, Mich. -- Public
universities and state and local governments would violate the state
constitution by providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees, the
Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage also applies
to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling
from an Ingham County judge who said universities and governments could provide
the benefits.
''The marriage amendment's plain language prohibits public employers from
recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose,'' the court wrote.
A constitutional amendment passed by Michigan voters in November 2004 made the
union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage ''or
similar union for any purpose.'' Those six words led to the court fight
over benefits for gay couples.
Gay couples and others had argued that the public intended to ban gay marriage
but not block benefits for unmarried opposite sex or same-sex domestic partners.
The appeals court agreed with the Michigan attorney general, Republican Mike
Cox, who said in a March 2005 opinion that same-sex benefits are not allowed in
a state that does not recognize same-sex unions.
The legal challenge was mounted by 21 gay couples who work for the city of
Kalamazoo, universities and the state.
''The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy
and tradition in the law of Michigan,'' Judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and
Brian Zahra noted In the unanimous ruling.
Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a leading gay
and lesbian advocacy group in Michigan, said the legal sanctity of marriage was
not in question.
''This ruling will result in families being robbed of their health care and
other basic necessities that are fundamental to protecting their well being,''
he said.
The case will be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, said Jay Kaplan, an
attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
''We're very disappointed by this result,'' he said. ''It's a misguided
analysis, and they produced a heartless result. It was never the voters'
intention in 2004 to take away health insurance benefits from families and
children.''
|
