Michigan high court says gay partners can't get health benefits

[Bluebear]

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A same-sex marriage ban prevents governments and universities in Michigan from providing health insurance to the partners of gay workers, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 5-2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, school districts and governments in Michigan with policies covering at least 375 gay couples.

Gay rights advocates said the ruling was devastating but were confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care.

The ban, a constitutional amendment approved in November 2004, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."

The court ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar because they're the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of gender and lack of a close blood connection.

Voters "hardly could have made their intentions clearer," Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law's "for any purpose" language.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j8_Dod_N1NIFZ5pCpdXpboaDZYtwD90H4UCO0

[BOSSHOG]

1. And yet wonderful christians can marry and divorce at will

as if they were changing their underwear.

[Bluebear]

3. Brittney can get drunk, married & divorced within a day - "the sanctity of marriage"

Disgraceful.

[BOSSHOG]

6. She comes from a good christian family

and lives in a very red congressional district. Praise the Lord and pass the instructions on which group of Americans christians sposed to hate next.

[joeglow3]

2. I hope the legislatures get off their asses

and clear this up.

[Not Me]

4. Sad, but there are ways around it

The company I used to work paid for the employee's insurance in full. Spouses could be added, as well as families.
Realizing the need to protect same-gender relationships they changed it, not to Domestic Partners but to two-person and dependents coverage.

Interestingly, the majority of the new people covered by this change were heterosexuals living together.
But they totally removed the marriage factor.

[ccharles000]

5. Damn heteros ruining everything.

[Blue_In_AK]

7. Your Supreme Court needs to take lessons from Alaska's

Supreme Court. We have that same-sex marriage ban, too, unfortunately, but our Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex benefits anyway, using some really brilliant logic, I think. Quoting the MSNBC reporting on this at the time (2005)...

"In the 2001 Superior Court ruling overturned Friday, Judge Stephanie Joannides said the state and city did not have to extend benefits to same-sex couples, equating them with unmarried heterosexual couples who also are not eligible.

"The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot."

Thus, it becomes an equal protection issue.

Of course, we have Neanderthals in the legislature who want to make a new law to get around the ruling. Sarah Palin was opposed to same-sex benefits, but on the advice of her attorney general, she hasn't pushed her opposition. So for now it stands. In Alaska it was really only relevant to maybe 16 couples, so making a big fuss against it is kind of idiotic.