Posted on 03/21/2005 9:42:14 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
ACLU files suit over state constitutional ban on gay marriage
3/21/2005, 11:34 a.m. ET
By BREE FOWLER
The Associated Press
DETROIT (AP) — A lawsuit challenging a recent attorney general's opinion that bans public employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples in future contracts was filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
The lawsuit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, asks the court to rule that Proposal 2 does not bar government employers from providing health insurance and other benefits to employees' same-sex partners and their children.
Those bringing the suit include a Washington-based AFL-CIO group called National Pride at Work that backs gay rights; Kalamazoo city employees; workers at state universities; and employees at various state agencies and departments.
Proposal 2, which 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."
The ACLU says in the lawsuit that U.S. courts have held that providing health insurance to same-sex domestic partners does not constitute recognition of a marriage or a similar union and is necessary for employers to attract qualified workers.
The ACLU also argues in the suit that the intent of voters was not to deny the families of gays and lesbians health insurance or other benefits. The suit says the ballot committee that sponsored Proposal 2 "consistently and repeatedly" assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.
Last week, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued his first legal interpretation of the amendment, 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.
Kalamazoo's policy gives domestic partnerships a "marriage-like" status, Cox said. Given the constitutional amendment's broad language, conferring benefits recognizes the validity of same-sex relationships, he ruled.
Cox said Proposal 2 also prohibits recognition of unmarried opposite-sex relationships.
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 itself 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.
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.
Cox's decision could affect state employees.
In early December, the Granholm administration decided to not offer benefits to same-sex couples — which were included in new labor contracts — until a court rules on their legality.
BS. The reason I voted FOR prop 2 was so that I DID NOT HAVE TO HAVE MY TAX money pay for it.
What about 'the Feds staying out of these private family issues?'
It's foolish for states to bend over and reward these unmarried couples with benefits, as it implies a great deal, and you cannot give these people just an inch. I'm just waiting for it to happen in MN. One of the first things our Repub gov did was to award unmarried benefits, all because he was afraid someone would call him a bigot. Then, of course, all kinds of companies started offering them.
Right. Why should you be coerced to give benefits to these people? If they do not like it, they can go work for the private sector.... or move to Vermont, Massachusetts or, California. States rights cuts both ways (and shouldn't mean state courts get to do the legislating).
so it boils down to homosexuals want money/benefits in support of their recreational sex fetish.
They want to force governemnt to recognize homosexuals via demanding "benefits".
What next? Governemnt sponsored dating services too?
What part of marriage are you protecting when you treat other relationships the same as marriage? It's like quabbling over what is a car and what is an automobile.
Would the ACLU jump to the defense of smokers or family members who smoke?
I hereby give every freeper the authority to call themselve senator with the rights and privildeges of using all senate facilities.
What does it matter if we allow everyone to have the same rights to use the senate gymnasium?
sarcasm for certain.
God knows I would love to see our country rid permanently of these evil people. The ACLU has done America more harm than any foreign invader intent upon our destruction. Congress needs be encouraged to end the funding of the ACLU
via that 1976 Civil Rights attorneys fee award act.But I fear we would necessarily have to rmeove more Democrats from the House and Senate If Michigan is as portrayed by the Detroit News -such action seems unlikely.
As for the senate, Levin's an institution, but Stabenow is certainly beatable. She won last time with 49% against an incumbent who couldn't campaign worth anything.
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.