MI: Editorial--Same-sex benefits: right ruling, wrong message

Link: Grand Rapids Press

Excerpt:

Wednesday's ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court striking down benefits for domestic partners at public institutions verifies a fairly obvious, straight-forward reading of the state constitution.

The ruling exposes, too, the obvious deceit of some who sold the 2004 marriage amendment to the public as merely an attempt to ban gay marriage in Michigan. In fact, it did much more. The result is detrimental to the reputation of a state that should be open and inclusive of all, including gay and lesbian people. The decision certainly hurts those who will lose their health care, or be unable to obtain any, because of it.

Too, it hamstrings universities and other public employers in recruiting world-class thinkers and researchers. The unfortunate truth is that a majority on the court, and probably the state, don't seem to care.

[...]

The marriage amendment, enacted by a solid voter majority, reads: "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, 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."

That final phrase -- "or similar union for any purpose" -- was central to this case. Benefits for same-sex partners function much as benefits for married individuals. The institutions that offer them thereby recognize domestic partnerships as "similar" unions, the court held.

During the 2004 campaign, a brochure distributed by amendment backers, "Citizens for the Protection of Marriage," meant to persuade voters that such benefits would not be affected. "This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life," the brochure read.

But the amendment's architects added the six decisive word, ". . .or similar union for any purpose" for some reason. Clearly, they wanted to do more than just ban gay marriage. In fact, the phrase likely rules out civil unions, too, another lamentable consequence of this sweeping prohibition.

Justice Stephen Markman, who wrote for the majority, noted that the sales pitch of supporters -- however inaccurate -- can't be the basis for the court's opinion. "Such extrinsic evidence can hardly be used to contradict the unambiguous language of the constitution," he wrote. He noted, too, that plenty of people warned at the time that the wording of the amendment could cut off domestic partner benefits. This newspaper was among those raising the alarm.

Regardless, the court should not be expected to correct campaign misrepresentations or look magically into voters' minds to decide what citizens did or did not understand. The straightforward meaning of the constitution's language should carry the day.

The sad result of that clear language will be limits on health care for Michigan residents, and further limits on public employer efforts to recruit qualified candidates. The message to voters who may not have been aware of, or desired, this draconian effect: buyer beware. The message to some people considering Michigan as a place to live and work may be more forbidding yet: keep out.

[jw]