Posted on 02/02/2007 10:04:01 AM PST by NormsRevenge
LANSING, Mich. - 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 ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge 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 gay 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 who work for the city of Kalamazoo, universities and the state.
"The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan," Judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and Brian Zahra noted In the unanimous ruling.
Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a leading gay and lesbian advocacy group in Michigan, said the legal sanctity of marriage was not in question.
"This ruling will result in families being robbed of their health care and other basic necessities that are fundamental to protecting their well being," he said.
The case will be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, said Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
"We're very disappointed by this result," he said. "It's a misguided analysis, and they produced a heartless result. It was never the voters' intention in 2004 to take away health insurance benefits from families and children."
Finally, a Court that upholds the VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, instead of legislating from the bench.
They will appeal until they find a friendly court, I suppose.....
What kind of "rogue court" is this? I mean, reading the clear language of the will of the people of the state as expressed in their passing of the amendment and ruling accordingly. Next thing you know the US Supreme Court will discover the Constitution.
The ruling prevents taxpayers from being robbed from being forced to providing benefits to sex partners.
Get serious. They couldn't find the First Amendment for Campaign Finance Reform.
Sorry, I wasn't really serious.
Well, this can't be. Does this ruling extend to loving siblings, pedophiles, and the beastophiles? If so, somebody needs diversity training.
"A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits."
I figure the insurance industry has enough clout to keep the courts from redefining who is covered and who is not. Until they provide 'sig other' coverage, this is all posturing at the taxpayer's expense and !#$%&!&% the ACLU for doing that!
That's true. They only intended to not have to pay for health insurance benefits for gay couples and their dependents. Benefits for families are still available to state employees. Gay couples can still get benefits for themselves and their dependents; they just can't get the taxpayers to pay for it.
Michigan is still conservative enough to have judges that actually support the will of the people. Compare Michigan to California.
Glad to hear it. It gives me hope for Wisconsin because the gays are mad as hell that their "marriages" were voted down by 59% of the people in Wisconsin.
They'll continue to pick away at this in our state, too. A loss is never a loss to the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.