ChuckD
The Gay Lord of Freestyle
Michigan's new constitutional ban on gay marriage shouldn't bar state and local governments from offering health insurance and other employee benefits to same-sex couples, a lawsuit filed Monday argues.
The Circuit Court suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups, challenged a recent opinion by state Attorney General Mike Cox that bans public employers from offering benefits to employees' same-sex partners in future contracts.
Proposal 2, the constitutional amendment that Michigan voters approved 59 percent to 41 percent in November, said a union between one man and one woman "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
Cox issued the opinion, the first legal interpretation of the amendment, last week, saying that Kalamazoo's policy of offering health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners violates the amendment.
Cox, a Republican, said his opinion does not apply to existing contracts, but it would apply to any future contracts at the agencies that have them.
Kalamazoo's policy gives domestic partnerships a "marriage-like" status, said Cox. Given the constitutional amendment's broad language, conferring benefits recognizes the validity of same-sex relationships, he ruled.
The lawsuit challenging his opinion cites previous rulings that health insurance for same-sex domestic partners does not constitute recognition of a marriage or a similar union. The groups argue that such benefits are necessary for employers to attract qualified workers.
Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are workers for the city of Kalamazoo, state universities and various state agencies and departments.
In the absence of a ruling from a court, the attorney general's interpretation of the law generally is binding, Cox spokeswoman Allison Pierce said. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals could hear a Proposal 2-based challenge to same-sex benefits early next month.
Cox said giving benefits does not violate Proposal 2, just basing them on a union similar to marriage. Governments instead could allow all employees to designate someone to share in benefits, he argued.
In December, the administration of Democrat Gov. Jennifer Granholm decided to not offer benefits to same-sex couples — which were included in new labor contracts for state workers — until a court rules on their legality. Government bodies that do offer such benefits include eight universities, three school districts, three cities and two counties.
The Circuit Court suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups, challenged a recent opinion by state Attorney General Mike Cox that bans public employers from offering benefits to employees' same-sex partners in future contracts.
Proposal 2, the constitutional amendment that Michigan voters approved 59 percent to 41 percent in November, said a union between one man and one woman "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
Cox issued the opinion, the first legal interpretation of the amendment, last week, saying that Kalamazoo's policy of offering health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners violates the amendment.
Cox, a Republican, said his opinion does not apply to existing contracts, but it would apply to any future contracts at the agencies that have them.
Kalamazoo's policy gives domestic partnerships a "marriage-like" status, said Cox. Given the constitutional amendment's broad language, conferring benefits recognizes the validity of same-sex relationships, he ruled.
The lawsuit challenging his opinion cites previous rulings that health insurance for same-sex domestic partners does not constitute recognition of a marriage or a similar union. The groups argue that such benefits are necessary for employers to attract qualified workers.
Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are workers for the city of Kalamazoo, state universities and various state agencies and departments.
In the absence of a ruling from a court, the attorney general's interpretation of the law generally is binding, Cox spokeswoman Allison Pierce said. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals could hear a Proposal 2-based challenge to same-sex benefits early next month.
Cox said giving benefits does not violate Proposal 2, just basing them on a union similar to marriage. Governments instead could allow all employees to designate someone to share in benefits, he argued.
In December, the administration of Democrat Gov. Jennifer Granholm decided to not offer benefits to same-sex couples — which were included in new labor contracts for state workers — until a court rules on their legality. Government bodies that do offer such benefits include eight universities, three school districts, three cities and two counties.