State Had Said Benefits Violate Constitution

POSTED: 5:51 pm EDT September 28, 2005

In a victory for Michigan same-sex couples, a judge ruled Tuesday that public employers in that state are not prohibited from offering domestic partner benefits to employees.

In 2004, an amendment to Michigan's constitution banned gay marriage and civil unions, but Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk said that providing health insurance to partners of gay employees did not violate the Michigan Constitution.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed a complaint on behalf of 21 same-sex couples that were in danger of losing health-care benefits after the amendment passed in November 2004, according to the group.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued a legal opinion in March saying that the measure prohibited the city of Kalamazoo from providing domestic partner benefits in future contracts. The city announced in April that it would discontinue benefits effective Jan. 1, 2006.

Cox was reviewing Tuesday's ruling and considering whether to appeal, said a spokeswoman.

The lawsuit came after Gov. Jennifer Granholm announced that a "legal cloud" exists and domestic benefits for employees and families would be withheld pending a judicial decision interpreting whether the language of the constitutional amendment, which limits marriage to a man and a woman, prohibits the provision of benefit packages.

According to the ACLU, both state and local governmental agencies, represented by the Michigan Corrections Organization, Michigan State Employees Association, Service Employees International Union, AFSCME and UAW, had successfully bargained for a jobs benefits package that was scheduled for ratification by the State Civil Service Commission on Dec. 15, 2004.

The package included medical benefits and medical leave for their families, including domestic partners and their children.

Many observers expect the case to reach the Michigan Supreme Court.

To read more about National Pride At Work v. Granholm, including the legal documents, click here.


http://www.clickondetroit.com/famil...058/detail.html

  Submit to Quotes         

Our current Michigan Supreme Court is considered conservative and will hopefully overturn this judges ruling.
One more judge trying to legislate from the bench.

  Submit to Quotes         

When this issue was being debated last year, those who were in favor of it said it was never their intention to take away people's health insurance, but instead just to ban gay marriage. I am happy to see that a judge realized this and has ruled to at least give people the health benefits back they they deserve.

Pro or anti gay marriage .. I don't think anyone should be denied a basic right such as health insurance. Why should who they sleep with play any factor at all into the discussion.

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-30-05)

Health insurance isn't a right. It's a privilege.

  Submit to Quotes         

I don't think anyone should be denied a basic privilege such as health insurance. Why should who they sleep with play any factor at all into the discussion.

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-30-05)

I couldn't agree more, Wolverine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Accountability for all, big or small, is what's needed this fall.

  Submit to Quotes