Michigan State Governments and Universities Prohibited From Offering Benefits to Same-Sex Couples

On May 7, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court in National Pride At Work v. Governor of Michigan held that Michigan governmental entities and public universities may not offer health insurance to the partners of same-sex employees because doing so violates Michigan’s Constitution which provides that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

Here is the Court’s conclusion:

The trial court held that providing health-insurance benefits to domestic partners does not violate the marriage amendment because public employers are not recognizing domestic partnerships as unions similar to marriage, given the significant distinctions between the legal effects accorded to these two unions. However, given that the marriage amendment prohibits the recognition of unions similar to marriage “for any purpose,” the pertinent question is not whether these unions give rise to all of the same legal effects; rather, it is whether these unions are being recognized as unions similar to marriage “for any purpose.”  Recognizing this and concluding that these unions are indeed being recognized as similar unions “for any purpose,” the Court of Appeals reversed. We affirm its judgment.  That is, we conclude that the marriage amendment, Const 1963, art 1, § 25, which states that “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose,” prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees’ qualified same-sex domestic partners.