From Lansing State Journal

Proposal 2 Supporters Taking Aim at Same-Sex Benefits:
Judges likely to decide fate of ban on gay marriages

By Stacey Range

November 4, 2004

After months of saying they wouldn't target domestic partner benefits, proponents of traditional marriage who backed Proposal 2 said Wednesday they plan to review benefit policies of all public employers.

Policies that extend health insurance, bereavement leave and other benefits solely to homosexual couples must be changed as employee contracts expire or they'll be in violation of the Michigan Constitution, proponents said.

"Benefits only to homosexuals are a formal recognition of a homosexual relationship as equal or similar to marriage," said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. "And the voters have said they don't want that."

Gay rights activists who fought against the amendment banning recognition of same-sex marriage said they're angry and disappointed by Glenn's comments.

"All along he denied that this amendment meant nothing to domestic partner benefits and now it's changing," said Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.

"If there is any attempt to try to take benefits away, we will sue."

Amendment opponents have long said the language is vague and feared it could impact domestic partner benefits. Glenn and amendment proponents dismissed those fears saying they were concerned only with defining marriage.

Hours after the amendment passed, Glenn blamed confusion on the media, which he said didn't understand the proposal. He said he interprets the language to mean domestic partner benefits now must be extended to all public employees who share their households.

"It could be a grandmother, a mother, a sister," Glenn said. "But benefits cannot be given on the basis of singling out homosexual relationships for special treatment."

Legal experts say the issue likely will be decided by the courts. The amendment, approved Tuesday 59 percent to 41 percent, makes marriage between a man and woman "the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Domestic partner benefits typically don't extend beyond romantic relationships. Lansing Community College has several qualifications to receive benefits, including recipients must be of the same sex, have had an intimate, committed relationship for the past year and cannot be blood related.

Glenn said any employers found to be in violation of the new amendment, which takes effect Jan. 1, will be turned over to Attorney General Mike Cox.

No one from Cox's office was available for comment Wednesday.

Experts said private employers likely would not be affected and, under federal law, benefit policies would have to change only when the employee contract expires.

Jeff Horner, a research associate with the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan, said he expects there will be other legal challenges as well.

Lawsuits seeking marriage rights or challenging bans on same-sex marriage have been filed in Oregon, Nebraska, Washington, California, New York and New Jersey. Georgia's newly approved ban will be challenged soon by lawyers contending that the measure's ballot summary did not convey its potentially sweeping impact on same-sex couples.

Horner pointed to Louisiana's amendment, struck down in state court this year, as a potential model for a possible suit here.

Voters there approved the amendment earlier this year but the court found it violated a state law that bars constitutional amendments from dealing with more than one subject.

The court found the amendment, which was worded similarly to Michigan's, banned not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions. Michigan election law could be interpreted on a similar basis.

Opponents have until Dec. 17 to file a legal challenge.

Contact Stacey Range at 377-1157 or srange@lsj.com.