Does Family Health Care Now Violate the Michigan Constitution?
A lawyer for Michigan's attorney general was in court yesterday arguing that a civil unions and marriage ban, passed in 2004, prohibits local governments and universities from offering domestic partner benefits. According to the Associated Press, the lawyer told a state appeals court that "giving the same benefits to same-sex partners that now go to spouses and children puts domestic partnerships on a similar footing as marriage."
"That's exactly," he told the reporter, "what the amendment, and the people of Michigan, are trying to prevent."
This is despite the fact that the "Yes" campaign in Michigan made statements assuring voters that the ban had nothing to do with health benefits.
One "Yes on the ban" brochure said: "Proposal 2 is Only About Marriage. Marriage is a union between husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life." And Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan, called the benefits threat a "scare tactic" and insisted "public employers could offer domestic partnership benefits if they want to."
Funny, that's what Julaine Appling and her buddies are saying.