Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

This is a link to the full text of the decision in which a Michigan court ruled that public employers can provide health insurance coverage to the same-sex domestic partner of an employee without violating the State's prohibition against recognition of same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage.

The wording of the amendment has proved to be its downfall on this matter. It begins by stating:

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society..."

The court found that health coverage is a benefit of employment, not marriage. What the court basically said was that because domestic partnerships don't receive any legal status or recognition from the State itself and each employer applies differing criteria when granting health coverage to the same-sex domestic partners of their employees, this doesn't constitute recognition by the State of those partnerships.

Moreover, the court found that an employer's granting of benefits to a domestic partnership does not create a union similar to marriage because:

1) Employers simply don't have that power. The State itself would have to be acting in some sovereign capacity, recognizing the partnerships in a uniform manner.

2) There are a wealth of other benefits and legal responsibilities associated with marriage that are not approximated by employers granting health coverage to domestic partners.

In short, the whole reason the amendment doesn't work in this case is due to the very failure of the State to grant full recognition to same-sex couples via marriage or some similar union statewide for civil purposes.

No word yet on whether it will be appealed to the state's supreme court, but I'd be very suprised if it wasn't.

[F'losrix]

I'm a bit surprised at the total lack of response on this. To me, this points to a loophole that really takes the teeth out of some of these state marriage amendments.

It is clear from the rhetoric of some of the amendments' proponents that they don't want any recognition of gay relationships, period. This ought to take the wind right out of their sails.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Interesting case. I think this whole battle is a farce. Why don't they just change the legal name of "marriage" to "civil union"? That way there wouldn't be any need for any amendment, etc. Then heterosexual or homosexual couples can call their relationship marriage and the state will recognize both as "civil unions".

[F'losrix]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Interesting case. I think this whole battle is a farce. Why don't they just change the legal name of "marriage" to "civil union"? That way there wouldn't be any need for any amendment, etc. Then heterosexual or homosexual couples can call their relationship marriage and the state will recognize both as "civil unions".
I agree completely.