from Parenting & Family
By William C. Duncan, NARTH Legal Committee Chairman
February 7, 2007 - Last week, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled against domestic partner benefits being offered by state agencies. An analysis of this decision is provided below:
NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK V. GOVERNOR
No. 265870
Michigan Court of Appeals
February 1, 2007
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/
FINAL/COA/20070201_C265870_104_265870.OPN.PDF
After passage of the Michigan marriage amendment, a group of public employees sought a declaratory judgment that public employers could offer health care benefits to unmarried partners of their employees. The trial court agreed saying that health care benefits are benefits of employment not benefits of marriage, so extending the benefits to same-sex couples would not conflict with the marriage amendment's policy.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed. The court said that the amendment prevents public employers from offering benefits to employees "if the benefits are conditioned on or provided because of an agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union." The court said the domestic partnership policies here "recognized" a same-sex union by "require[ing] proof of the existence of a formal domestic partnership agreement to establish eligibility." To the court, because the domestic partnership is a "public proclamation" of the couple's relationship, it creates a "union." The union is similar to marriage because both (1) have requirements related to the sex of the parties, (2) require an agreement between the parties, (3) prohibit blood relations from contracting, (4) prohibit married persons from entering, (5) include an age requirement and (6) create legal obligations for third parties (here, the employment benefits).
Plaintiffs had also argued that if the amendment were interpreted to preclude benefits, it would conflict with the Equal Protection guarantee in the state constitution. The court rejected this argument saying that the people of Michigan "could rationally conclude that the welfare and morals of society benefit from protecting and strengthening traditional marriages, and this act of the people constitutes a legitimate government interest."
Finally, the court said that the amendment does not "selectively target same-sex couples" because it applies to any unmarried relationship. The court concluded that the amendment "does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship."