« Law - NY Times writes about lawyer blogs | Main | Ind. Decisions - List of Court of Appeals NFP opinions issued for week ending October 7, 2005 »

Friday, October 07, 2005

Law - Michigan Senate wants to block same-sex benefits

"Michigan Senate wants to block same-sex benefits: Nonbinding resolution sent to state Supreme Court" is the headline to an AP story today in the South Bend Tribune. Some quotes:

LANSING -- The state Senate on Thursday approved resolutions urging the Michigan Supreme Court to block public-sector employers, including state government, from providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees until the court makes a final ruling on the issue.

The Republican-controlled Senate voted 22-16, mostly along party lines, to pass two resolutions to prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent on same-sex benefits until the court reaches a final judgment.

The measures are symbolic and do not have the force of law.

"If we're really concerned about not disrupting people's lives, we ought to keep the status quo until the court makes a decision," said Sen. Alan Cropsey, a DeWitt Republican who sponsored the measures. * * *

An Ingham County judge ruled last month that public universities and governments could provide domestic partner benefits without violating a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm then said she would ask the state Civil Service Commission to approve domestic partner benefits for state employees. The benefits had been included in new labor contracts, but Granholm put them on hold while waiting for a court ruling. * * *

A measure passed last year made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose." Those six words led to a fight over benefits for gay couples.

Republican Attorney General Mike Cox issued an opinion in March saying the measure bars the city of Kalamazoo from providing domestic partner benefits in future contracts. But 21 gay couples who work for Kalamazoo, universities and the state filed a lawsuit challenging Cox's interpretation.

Cox plans to appeal the Ingham County judge's ruling, prompting Senate Republicans to push the two resolutions asking the state's highest court to "take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo" until it rules.

Sen. Gilda Jacobs, D-Huntington Woods, urged her colleagues Thursday to vote against the measures. "We should be celebrating this great state's diversity, not discriminating against certain people," Jacobs said.

This 4/4/05 ILB entry is a good background piece to this story.

[More] Here is a CNN story from 9/28/05 on the Ingram County Michigan trial judge's opinion. Here is a link to the legal documents in the case, National Pride At Work v. Granholm. However, this does not seem to include the opinion itself.

Here is a scanned version of circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk's 9/27/05 opinion in the case.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 7, 2005 12:42 PM
Posted to General Law Related