teech
02-04-2007, 08:34 AM
Michigan court vetoes same-sex benefits
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 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) 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 same-sex 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 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) who work for the city of Kalamazoo, universities and the state
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
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 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) 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 same-sex 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 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) who work for the city of Kalamazoo, universities and the state
[Only registered and activated users can see links]