The bigots go marching on.
LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Universities and local governments that offer health insurance to the partners of gay workers are violating a 2004 amendment to the Michigan Constitution concerning marriage, the state attorney general's office argued Tuesday in court.
A lawyer for Republican Attorney General Mike Cox said giving the same benefits to same-sex partners that now go to spouses and children puts domestic partnerships on a similar footing as marriage, even though the constitutional amendment limited marriage to a man and a woman.
"That's exactly what the amendment, and the people of Michigan, are trying to prevent," Eric Restuccia told the Michigan Court of Appeals.
But a lawyer for gay employees who get the benefits said a public employer's decision to grant health benefits in no way recognizes a marriage or marriage-like union between gay partners.
"Health benefits are simply not a benefit of marriage," said Deborah LaBelle of the American Civil Liberties Union. "It doesn't have anything to do with marriage."
LaBelle and an attorney for Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm also said backers of the constitutional amendment claimed during the campaign to pass it that the amendment was about protecting marriage and barring civil unions, not taking away benefits.
The voter-approved 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 legal fight over benefits for gay couples, who say voters never intended to keep them from getting health insurance.
Nancy English, 51, said she worries about losing the health coverage she gets from her partner's employer, Lansing Community College. The Lansing woman said supporters of the amendment repeatedly said it wouldn't strip away benefits.
"Who's immoral here? Gay people or the people who lied?" English said.
Backers of the amendment have agreed its primary intent was to reaffirm the definition of marriage. But Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan has said the secondary intent was to make sure the definition is honored for any purpose.
Gee Gary- you didn't emphasize any "secondary intent" when you pushed this proposal. Liar.
Stay tuned. This will be challenged all the way to the MI Supreme Court.
Funny thing is- to not cover these people under employment benefits has the potential to either keep them uninsured and have them end up in emergency rooms, which costs the taxpayers, or put them on state/federal social services, which costs the taxpayers. Ha ha. You get to pay for the gay people after all, you hosers.