Michigan Court Voids "Domestic Partner Benefits"

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that public institutions are prohibited by the state constitution from extending marriage benefits or "domestic partner benefits" to unmarried couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual. The court ruled that the state constitutional amendment, which defines marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, prohibits the "domestic partner benefits."

Dale Schowengerdt, who had authored a friend-of-the-court brief on the case, along with attorney James Wierenga, said in an Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) press release that "all government programs should comply with state law, and the appeals court has correctly interpreted the state laws on marriage. Michigan law expressly prohibits marriage substitutes." He said public institutions may give health and other benefits to employees on an equal basis, as long as they are not "marriage-like." Schowengerdt and Wierenga are both ADF attorneys and were working for the Christian legal agency on the case.

The brief had been filed in January 2006. It pointed out that the state constitution protected marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. The brief also pointed out that the constitution protected marriage benefits as well, as benefits between one man and one woman. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the state of Michigan, demanding benefits for "domestic partnerships," including same sex couples.

Michigan's "marriage protection amendment" was approved by state voters in 2004. It reads in part, "To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage should be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Schowengerdt said Michigan voters "made their intentions clear" by passing an amendment that marriage "from all counterfeits." He said that "contrary to the ACLU," the amendment declares what marriage is and is not.

The brief in the Michigan Court of Appeals claimed that the claim by the ACLU that the constitutional amendment might violate the state's equal protection clause was not true. It claimed that couples, other than married couples would be unable to show they are similarly situated to married couples. Therefore, an equal protection claim was invalid. It also noted that the equal protection clause protects individual rights, but couples were trying to get the "domestic partner benefits."

The brief in the Michigan court also claimed that the constitutional amendment applied to both homosexual and unmarried heterosexual couples and did not specifically prohibit only homosexual couples from receiving "domestic partnership benefits." It noted that under Michigan law, public institutions could give benefits to anyone, as long as it did not compare a relationship between two unmarried individuals to a marriage or "domestic partnership."

The suit in the Michigan court, concerning "domestic partner benefits" had been filed against the governor of Michigan and others.