So, I was reading the news reports earlier and one article caught my eye. Apparently, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed to hear National Pride at Work v. Governor of Michigan on May 24th.
What Is This Case?
As you may recall in my series on Marriage Laws, Michigan added an amendment to their state constitution banning state government recognition of gay marriage. Apparently, the wording of that amendment has created some consequences that supporters of the same-sex marriage ban were not expecting.
What Consequences?
It seems that a lower court said that the amendment, voted on in 2004, bans not just same-sex marriages, but the recognition or use of any government action that would recognize that marriage. The court then said that state government agencies, municipalities, state universities and any other government based institution that provides domestic-partner benefits to same-sex partners must cease and desist.
Why?
The lower court cited the following language in the amendment that says: the union of a man and a woman in marriage
shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
Domestic-partner benefits are a way to recognize a similar union according to the lower court; therefore, state institutions that offer those benefits are violating the state constitution. Michigan’s amendment was applauded initially because it was so strongly worded.
Municipal and state employees affected by the amendment and the lower court’s ruling on it have challenged the amendment and are seeking to overturn it. Some opponents to gay marriage have joined them because this side-effect is very much an unintended consequence of the amendment as it affects the health care and retirement benefits for same sex couples that were initially protected as domestic partners.
What will the Michigan Supreme Court decide? I have no idea. I do hope it can be ironed out so that this unintended consequence doesn’t create more friction for a topic that is already hotly debated. Do you agree with the lower court’s interpretation of the amendment’s language? Do domestic partner benefits act as recognition of a ‘similar union’?
More marriage in the news stories: