|
Speak up about the anti-family Michigan Court of Appeals ruling
On Friday, February 2nd, 2007 the Michigan Court of Appeals released the most anti-GLBT ruling in Michigan's history. The Court held that the 2004 Michigan Constitutional amendment banning marriage equality also prohibits public employers in Michigan (such as cities, school districts, community college and universities) from being able to offer domestic partnership benefits. These benefits are often used to provide important resources such as health care to public employee's partners and their partner's children.
Dear [ Decision Maker ] , I would like to express my deep disappointment in the recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision to strip gay and lesbian couples of their domestic partner benefits. On Friday, February 2, 2007 the Court released their ruling that the 2004 Michigan Constitutional amendment banning marriage equality also prohibits basic health insurance offered by public employers through domestic partner benefits. This is certainly not the way the proposal was presented to voters in November of 2004. I don't believe that the majority of voters intended to take health insurance away from families and children. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The majority of Michigan citizens are in favor of domestic partner benefits. The voters were tricked. With this decision, Michigan has the distinct honor of having the only appellate court in America to rule that domestic partner benefits are prohibited by a marriage ban. This move is offensive and serves to dehumanize people in same-sex partnerships and their families by denying them access to healthcare, education and other benefits. The Michigan Court of Appeals' decision also helps create a climate in Michigan where discrimination is not only permitted, but encouraged. Given our current economic climate, Michigan cannot afford this setback to our ability to be competitive. College graduates and young adults, our future "best and brightest," are leaving Michigan for more culturally and economically innovative places. With the passage of Proposal 2 and the failure to recognize domestic partner benefits, Michigan has taken steps backwards and risks losing even more residents. This decision will only fuel the brain drain we already suffer. I sincerely hope that you will stand up for fairness, equality and justice in Michigan by helping maintain public employees' domestic partner benefits. I support domestic partner benefits and I urge you to do the same.
Sincerely, |
Campaign Launched: |
| Background Information |
Michigan is the first state in the US to have such an anti-family court ruling made. This ruling puts hundreds of Michigan children, and their parents, without health care. This ruling has also been idenfied by organizations such as the American Family Association as something they would like to use as justification for taking domestic partnership benefits away from public employees in other states as well. We must send a clear message now that this cannot be allowed to happen.
Talking Points
-
The Michigan Court of Appeals has adopted a broad reading of the constitutional amendment passed in 2004 (Proposal 2) prohibiting same-sex marriages - saying that same-sex couples can never be recognized for anything by a state or local government. That is not what voters were told in 2004 by proponents of this amendment. The majority of voters did not intend to take health insurance away from families and children.
-
The Court deliberately ignored case decisions in other states that looked at laws the prohibited same-sex marriage and still held that public employers can offer domestic partner benefits. The Michigan Court of Appeals decision is totally out of sync with the consensus of every other state court that has looked in this issue.
-
The Court of Appeals on its own initiative, without any request from the parties (including Attorney General Mike Cox) ordered that their decision is to take immediate effect - which could have the effect of stopping people’s health insurance and their access to health care. This can only be viewed as callous and mean-spirited and lacking any legal basis.
-
The Court of Appeals- mistakenly found that anytime criteria for benefits has anything in common with criteria for marriage - it’s in violation of the amendment’s language. Consider this, just because you need to be 16 to get a driver’s license and have to be 16 to legally wed, doesn’t mean the driver’s license is a marriage or similar to marriage. DP benefits don’t create any legal entity like marriage. They don’t create any legal rights or responsibilities. DP benefits are taxed as income (spousal insurance benefits are not). There are numerous differences between the two.
-
The panel makes no mention of the plaintiffs, their situation, the impact of DP benefits on their lives.
