|
Detroit
Free Press
State's high court
hears same-sex benefits case
By DAWSON BELL.
freep.com from the Web, November 6, 2007
The implications of the 2004 marriage
amendment to the Michigan constitution were argued for the first time before the
state Supreme Court on Tuesday in a case involving the extension of health care
benefits to the same sex partners of public employees.
Lawyers representing Attorney General Mike Cox argued that benefit plans at the
University of Michigan, the City of Kalamazoo and others were barred because
they gave legal recognition to same-sex relationships that were substantially
similar to those for married couples.
Lawyers representing the public agencies, Gov. Jennifer Granholmn, the ACLU and
other gay rights groups said voters had not intended to bar benefits when they
passed the so-called marriage amendment, but instead wanted to protect the
institution of marriage at a time when same-sex unions were being sanctioned or
endorsed in other parts of the country.
The Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the attorney general in a decision
issued late last year. Several of the public employers, including
Kalamazoo, revised their benefits policies in ways that allowed them to continue
offering benefits without specific reference to same-sex relationships in the
wake of that ruling.
But lawyers on both sides said Tuesday a decision from the Supreme Court is
needed to provide clear guidance of what the amendment requires of public
agencies. Private employers are not affected by the amendment.
|
