Posted on 03/17/2005 8:11:39 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
Cox: Local, state governments fall under (Marriage Protection Amendment)
LANSING -- Local governments and the state can't give benefits to employees' same-sex partners now that voters have approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage, the state's attorney general said Wednesday.
In the first legal interpretation of Proposal 2, Attorney General Mike Cox wrote in an opinion that Kalamazoo's policy of offering health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners violates the amendment, which passed in November.
The decision applies only to future contracts, not ones already in effect.
In mid-Michigan, employers that offer domestic partner benefits include Ingham County, Michigan State University and Lansing Community College.
Proposal 2 said a union between one man and one woman "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
Kalamazoo's policy gives domestic partnerships a "marriage-like" status, Cox said.
"The only relationship that may be given any recognition or acknowledgment of validity is the union of one man and one woman in marriage," Cox wrote.
Cox said Proposal 2 also prohibits recognition of unmarried opposite-sex relationships.
The decision is likely to affect state employees. In early December, the Granholm administration decided to not offer benefits to same-sex couples that were included in new labor contracts until a court rules on their legality.
Chris Swope, executive director of Michigan Equality and an Ingham County commissioner, also predicted a court battle.
"We still have an opportunity to fight this through the court system and stand up for our employees and provide the benefits that have been promised," Swope said. "It's an issue of fairness and equality."
Ingham County's attorney Peter Cohl had not seen the opinion Wednesday and said he could not comment, except to say that an opinion from the state's attorney general would not necessarily affect the county.
"It's only binding on state government," he said.
Michigan State University spokesman Terry Denbow said the university would review Cox's opinion, but he could not comment further.
Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan was pleased with Cox's opinion.
"The chief law enforcement officer is now officially on record that a public employer cannot formally recognize and treat homosexual relationships among its employees as being similar or equal to marriage," he said.
The opinion - requested by Republican Rep. Jack Hoogendyk Jr. of Kalamazoo - drew criticism from gay rights groups.
Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, said Cox's opinion was wrong.
"Most people did not think they were voting to take health care benefits away from people," Montgomery said.
Cox said providing benefits does not violate Proposal 2; governments could offer benefits to people designated by employees. But they couldn't be based on a union similar to marriage, he said.
Montgomery blasted Cox's rationale.
"It sounds like as long as you don't say benefits are for your partner, then it's not a problem," he said. "That is almost as insulting as Proposal 2 is itself."
It is unclear how Cox's opinion might affect universities that offer same-sex benefits. The schools have argued the constitution gives them autonomy to make those sorts of decisions.
Tim Zeller, general counsel at Lansing Community College, had not seen the opinion Wednesday, but he was certain it would spawn further lawsuits.
"I don't expect the attorney general's opinion to be the last word on this issue," he said.
What's next
• In the absence of a court ruling, the attorney general's interpretation of the law generally is binding, Cox spokeswoman Allison Pierce said. The state Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments next month in a case challenging Ann Arbor Public Schools' domestic partner benefits.
Go Mike!
Our state tax dollars at work. Cox is pre-empting the inevitable court fights from state, county, city and other employee unions, and closet support from Granholm.
"closet support"
heh...
The reason why I voted for prop 2 is because I didn't want my TAX MONEY paying for domestic benefits.
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.