Michigan court rules that marriage law bans same-sex partnership benefits
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente

Lansing, Mich., May 8, 2008 / 06:00 pm (CNA).- The Michigan General Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also blocks Michigan governments and state universities from offering “domestic partnership” benefits for homosexual couples.

The Marriage Protection Amendment was approved by nearly sixty percent of voters in 2004.  Considered the broadest of the 11 state marriage amendments barring same-sex marriage, the language of the Michigan amendment says “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

The Michigan ACLU, representing the AFL-CIO homosexual activist group National Pride at Work, had challenged the application of the law as based in Attorney General Mike Cox’s interpretation of the amendment.

The Michigan court’s 5-2 decision did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees.  Some local governments and universities have attempted to maintain present benefits by amending the eligibility requirements.

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, praised the decision, saying, “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously upheld the will of the people.”

Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: Jack
Greenwood,USA 05/11/2008 01:10 AM EST
What will the state do with Islamic families with more that one wife? Is it to be "Sophie's Choice" or will “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously uphold the will of the Vatican?”
Rate this comment:
Published by: Greg
Dallas, TX, USA 05/09/2008 12:59 PM EST
GayforG'd, your comment is entirely outside the scope of the case and the Michigan Court's ruling. It is also irrelevant, because you may give legal and/or medical power of attorney to whomever you wish, now, in every state.
Rate this comment:
Published by: GayforG'd
Michigan 05/08/2008 11:27 PM EST
This disgusts me... doesn't the government have better things to do than discriminate against me. If I am sick, the person I LOVE should be able to make decisions that I may be incapable of. Jesus Christ, our lord, will not approve of biggots who sinfully use Christ as an excuse to promote prejudice.
Rate this comment:
Published by: Jack Picknell
Burnaby, BC Canada 05/08/2008 06:06 PM EST
Just when I was beginning to think all courts had lost their minds. This is excellent news!
Rate this comment:
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:
 
PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here
Resources:
Columns:
News:
Documents:
Tools:
ACI Group:
ACI Prensa