Revisiting Michigan's Ban on Gay Marriage
Saturday May 17, 2008
According to the Associated Press, the California Supreme Court this week overturned a state law that banned gay/lesbian marriage, thrusting the issue once again into the national spotlight. According to an editorial in the Detroit Free Press, the introduction of a proposal that would amend the California Constitution -- a move already undertaken by Michigan in 2004 -- limits the viability of the Supreme Court ruling, making it an empty exercise. That's true, however, only if the proposed amendment to the California Constitution is in fact adopted. California often breaks new ground. For instance, California was the first state to strike down a ban against inter-racial marriage in Perez v. Sharp in 1948, and the rest of the nation eventually followed.
Even if California adopts an amendment and the ruling only has a temporary effect, in the wake of so many states taking action to ban gay marriage, it reminds us that there is another point of view -- and we may need the reminder.
Last week, the Michigan's Supreme Court made a ruling of its own that interpreted Michigan's marriage amendment, finding that it went well beyond defining "marriage" in the state. In fact, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the amendment barred public employers from providing health care benefits to partners of gay and lesbian employees. The Michigan Supreme Court relied on the amendment's prohibition of a "similar union [to marriage] for any purpose" language for its decision.
Given the fact that Michigan's governor supports domestic-partnership benefits, the 2004 amendment passed by a relatively narrow margin (59 percent), and the long-reaching effect of the amendment as demonstrated in the recent Michigan Supreme Court decision, do we as a state have any regrets? The ruling makes Michigan one of the most conservative states on the issue. Is this who we really are?
Would you vote for the amendment today knowing it went beyond defining marriage and would be used to bar civil unions and partners and children of gays/lesbians from receiving health care benefits?
Even if California adopts an amendment and the ruling only has a temporary effect, in the wake of so many states taking action to ban gay marriage, it reminds us that there is another point of view -- and we may need the reminder.
Last week, the Michigan's Supreme Court made a ruling of its own that interpreted Michigan's marriage amendment, finding that it went well beyond defining "marriage" in the state. In fact, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the amendment barred public employers from providing health care benefits to partners of gay and lesbian employees. The Michigan Supreme Court relied on the amendment's prohibition of a "similar union [to marriage] for any purpose" language for its decision.
Given the fact that Michigan's governor supports domestic-partnership benefits, the 2004 amendment passed by a relatively narrow margin (59 percent), and the long-reaching effect of the amendment as demonstrated in the recent Michigan Supreme Court decision, do we as a state have any regrets? The ruling makes Michigan one of the most conservative states on the issue. Is this who we really are?
Would you vote for the amendment today knowing it went beyond defining marriage and would be used to bar civil unions and partners and children of gays/lesbians from receiving health care benefits?
Comments
Your comments are at best wistful and at worst downright misleading (from a liberal perspective). For one thing, you offer no link to prove that Governor Granholm supports gay marriage and I have done a bit of research and fail to find proof of that. She seems to support the usual civil unions that the Dems support.
Secondly, 59% is not a narrow pass rate and it’s incorrect suggest it is, especially when you consider that this amendment also prohibited civil unions and domestic partnerships, too. It’s widely believed that it would have passed by a much wider margin had it been a more limited amendment. That said, 59% still ain’t too shabby.
As pretty well always is the case, other states are reading too much what happened in the narrow 4-3 ruling. Don’t forget that 3 justices quite stridently rejected this ruling’s outcome, even in notoriously homosexual-friendly California (at least by US standards - by Canadian and European standards, California is actually still pretty conservative). But California is no longer a trend-setter in the nation, as it is now an out of control state with crazy tendencies. California is now more like Vegas - what happens in California stays in California. What’s more there’s an excellent chance that California voters, who feel deeply insulted when their will is snubbed by judges, will reverse this. A poll just released by Survey USA finds that by a margin of 52%-36% Californians support amending their state constitution to prohibit these marriages.
Gov. Granholm has repeatedly stated that she does NOT support gay marriage. She does support about every other gay “right” I know of other than marriage.
Granholm opposed the amendment and supports benefits for partners of gays and lesbians. The paragraph stating she supports gay marriage has been corrected. Thanks for the catch and the comments!
You wrote: “In fact, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the amendment barred public employers from providing health care benefits to partners of gay and lesbian employees.”
Actually, that’s incorrect.
The Court ruled that public employers cannot provide benefits ON THE BASIS OF recognizing and treating homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage.
As even the opponents of the amendment — the ACLU, etc. — have admitted, public employers can (and many already have) BROADENED their benefits eligibility criteria to include homosexual partners but also be available to other employees’ designated beneficiaries.
So the irony is that because of the amendment, more Michigan citizens — not fewer — are now eligible for coverage under govt employees’ healthcare plans than were before.
If, indeed, eligibility for benefits is broadened in reaction to the marriage amendment, is that a bad thing?
Does it influence how you feel about the amendment and its language?
The amendment is still wrong and based in hate, but I think it’s quite hilarious how it is backfiring on its hateful supporters. hahaha