Legality of Domestic-Partners Benefits Gets Michigan Supreme Court Hearing

LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court Tuesday heard oral arguments in a domestic-partners health benefits case that experts say has national implications.

The case, Pride at Work v. Granholm, challenges whether an amendment voters added to the state Constitution in 2004 prevents public employers from offering the benefits to same-sex couples. The amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

An Ingham County Circuit Court judge ruled that providing the benefits did not violate the state Constitution. But the state Court of Appeals ruled in February that it was a violation. The state Supreme Court will rule by June 2008 which court was correct.

Continued -“It is potentially hugely important,” said Marc Spindelman, an associate professor of law at Ohio State University and a visiting professor at the University of Michigan. “It is important nationally and if they (the Michigan Supreme Court) breaks from the Ohio court and nullifies domestic-partner benefits, it could set a standard.”

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that an Ohio marriage amendment only impacted actual relationships that contained the “bundle” of rights traditionally attributed to marriage.

The Justices in Michigan focused Tuesday on two specific issues. First, they asked attorneys if the case was even necessary because of the implementation of new domestic-partner programs that did not rely on same-sex relationships to confer benefits, but instead looked at other criteria that  included living together for a specific time, sharing expenses and not being related. These are known as Other Eligible Individual (this sounds like it should be plural) programs. 

The second issue the justices focused on was rights bundling, as the Ohio Supreme Court did.

“Is it a similar union? … If you look at marriage as a bundle of rights, this is a thin bundle,” Justice Robert Young Jr. said.

“You’re equating a stick with a bundle?” Justice Stephen Markman asked. “If it is not a similar union it doesn’t apply.”

The justices’ questioning might be a positive sign, “this is good news,” Spindelman said, maintaining that the focus on the bundling question could easily lead to a narrowly interpreted ruling. He also said the focus on the Other Eligible Individual programs, which have been implemented at several state universities was a good technical move.

“It is heartening that the justices are asking that question, and more so that Michael Cox, the state attorney general is saying that it is right,” he added. “If the current policy in use is not unconstitutional, why would the court address a policy that is no longer being used?”

The attorney general and Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, which supported the state amendment, have said the new Other Eligible Individual programs at Michigan State University, the City of Kalamazoo and at the University of Michigan are constitutional.

“We don’t anticipate any legal challenges to that,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Restuccia, when asked by one of the justices if the new policy was acceptable.

“They may be constitutional. I don’t anticipate further lawsuits on that particular question,” Glenn said.

“The blowback appears to be lined up along the other side,” Spindelman said of any potential negative response to a ruling. “The unreasonable image of denying health benefits looks like someone is trying to put their religious scruples on others.”

The Associate Press contributed to this report.