Mich. Appeals Court Considers Same-Sex Health Benefits

The Michigan Court of Appeals is considering whether governments and public universities can provide health insurance and other benefits to the partners of gay employees without violating the state constitution.

Republican Attorney General Mike Cox’s office told a three-judge panel that a 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment bars the City of Kalamazoo, the University of Michigan and other public employers from continuing to provide same-sex benefits in future contracts.

Giving benefits to domestic partners that otherwise only spouses or children could receive gives gay partners “special treatment” in violation of the constitution, said Erick Restuccia,state assistant attorney general.

“That’s exactly what the amendment, and the people of Michigan, are trying to prevent,” he said during oral arguments.

The amendment 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 have spurred a fight over benefits for gay couples, who argue voters never intended to keep them from receiving health insurance and other benefits.

Deborah LaBelle, an attorney for 21 gay couples who work for public employers, said granting health insurance in no way recognizes a marital union.

She and an attorney representing Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm also argued that the ballot measure was a response to the debate about same-sex marriage and whether to recognize civil unions from other states, not any disagreement over same-sex benefits.

An attorney for the University of Michigan and Wayne State University, which provide same-sex benefits, said the schools would be at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and retention if they couldn’t provide the benefits.

In September, an Ingham County judge ruled in favor of the gay couples. But the appeals court halted the ruling until it could decide the issue