It seems that most people who don’t agree with gay “marriage” don’t really have a problem with domestic partnerships or benefits related to such unions, at least in a general sense. Such partnerships for most are meant to cover relationships from same sex unions to long-term roommates, cohabitating heterosexual couples, and even relatives who share their lives together and seek benefits.
Perhaps the Michigan legislation went too far in attempting to use strong language that left no wiggle room. It is understandable that those who defend marriage would want to construct laws or amendments in a way that cannot be overridden by activist judges, but it seems that unintended consequences have arisen due to the language used.
In creating legislation, even the difference between common and simple words such as “and” instead of “or” can completely alter the meaning and scope of legislation. In citing “similar unions,” Michigan seems to have excluded all relationships aside from marriage from any form of protection. I am not so sure that this is what people intended.
In most cases, people who defend marriage do not want to keep gay couples from being protected under the law. They simply do not want marriage perverted into something it is not and they do not want the gay agenda advanced through redefining marriage. They do not begrudge gay and lesbian couples insurance, inheritance, visitation in the hospital, and other important benefits, just as they don’t wish to deny such things to people engaged in other types of alternative relationships.
I can’t guess what the Michigan Supreme Court will decide, but if I had to speculate on how the Court might reverse the case, I’d say the phrase “similar union” could possibly be struck down as being unconstitutionally vague. Law is to be interpreted according to the common understanding of terms used and if one has to question the intent of the language, it can potentially be deemed unconstitutionally vague. This case will certainly be watched closely by people on both sides of the issue.