Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Michigan Court of Appeals has voided partnership benefits that exist because of negotiated contracts with public employee's unions in the state of Michigan, based upon the anti-gay marriage amendment passed in 2004. This prevents the state government, city governments and public universities in the state from offering any sort of health or pension benefits to the partners of gay employees.
This is part of the bait and switch lie from those who pushed the amendment. During the debate on the amendment, those who opposed the amendment argued that the wording was broad enough that it could void such benefits, but advocates of the amendment vehemently denied that. Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, the group that actually wrote the amendment, called that a lie and put out a pamphlet that denied that it would do so. It said:
Proposal 2 is Only about marriage. Marriage is a union between husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their lives. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is-for families today and future generations.
The Catholic Diocese of Detroit, which bankrolled the referendum effort, likewise said that the amendment would not void any such benefits, that it only had to do with who could get married:
The Catholic Church, which kicked in more than half of the $1.7 million raised in support of Proposal 2, also supports health benefits for gay employees."The question we put before voters reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage, it was not about benefits," said Ned McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Detroit.
Guess who the attorney was for CFPM, the guy who actually wrote the amendment? Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Institute (and one of the attorneys in the Dover case as well). Guess who immediately sued cities and public universities to void the benefits he claimed wouldn't be voided by the amendment after it passed? Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Institute.
They pulled a bait and switch. The ADF has joined in this chorus of lies, reacting with feigned outrage at those who would dare to claim that these amendments void partnership benefits:
Preying on these and similar fears, advocates of same-sex "marriage" argue that proposed state marriage amendments will undermine the ability of government and even private entities to grant benefits to unmarried people. This false argument is being used to confuse many people..
Yeah, we're just preying on fears. Never mind that it has actually happened despite such denials, not only in Michigan but in Ohio and other states as well. Let's hope the Michigan Supreme Court overturns this decision soon.
Comments
Not knowing much about the cultural or political climate there, can someone answer a few questions?
First, why would the courts rule in favor of TMLC? Is the anti-gay sentiment widespread enough that the courts were just waiting for the suit to come (or maybe just that particular judge/panel)? Or were the courts simply following the law as written to prove the point made by the opponents?
Why would the appeals court overturn the ruling unless there is a flaw in the reasoning, regardless of right or wrong? Now, if it goes far enough up the ladder and the law gets declared unconstitutional, then it would quite readily be overturned (and probably void many similar laws in other states).
This just shows yet again, that the christianists backing these sorts of legal measures are more than willing to lie and cheat to further thier religious agenda.
Makes me sick.
Posted by: Fastlane | February 5, 2007 9:27 AM
I work for the Appeals Court (though obviously don't speak for them) and I can tell you that the opinion claims that it is only following the exact wording of the amendement. But they go further and say that it is unambiguous, and so they can and must ignore everything else extrinsic, such as the promises pointed out above (that turned out to be lies). I don't think the reasoning is particularly good - most notable is the fact that the court only found it was 'obviously unambiguous' after taking ten months to ponder the opinion. If it was so obvious, why did this opinion take twice as long as the normally longest time an opinion takes? I think the reasoning is flawed and result-oriented, but maybe that is because they knew the Supreme Court of Michigan would have done the same thing. (It is an extremely conservative court - imagine four or five people more conservative than Scalia on a seven person court). So don't expect this to be reversed on appeal.
But hey, one never knows.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | February 5, 2007 10:12 AM
The courts ruled in favour of the TMLC, because despite what people were told, the law was clearly set up to void any partnership benefits, including the line "or similar union for any purpose"
Posted by: G. Shelley | February 5, 2007 11:01 AM
Ed,
Do unions, in Michigan, have any course of action?
That is, can they say to the state or to a municipality, we no longer have a contract since you have unilaterally breached a major part of it?
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | February 5, 2007 11:09 AM
I think that existing contracts will run unchanged - there is a contracts clause in the constitution - so what will probably happen is that the existing contracts will continue unchanged, but no new contracts will be able to be implemented with those benefits once those contracts expire. But don't quote me on that. That's just my best guess, not having actually looked into it.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | February 5, 2007 11:34 AM
I really do not understand the ruling. Can one only get benefits for your spouse? I always thought of them as family benefits, not marriage benefits. Would they deny me insurance for my kids because I am gay? It is a strange ruling. I understand one can get benefits for a spouse, but does it follow that one must be a spouse to get benefits?
Posted by: Tulle | February 5, 2007 12:55 PM
I am curious how this will affect companies that get all or most of their work through government contracts. Would this restrict them from providing domestic partner benifits?
Tulle -
I think that really depends on the state and local government. Many companies offer domestic partner benies, regardless of sexual orientation. But when dealing with government entities, it varies according to jurisdiction. I doubt a lot of conservative jurisdictions allow tax dollars to go towards any domestic partner benies, outside marriage.
Unfortunately, I doubt a lot of jurisdictions in Florida allow them. It saddens me that the state where I grew up seems to be trying to acheive worse feats of bigotry than your home state. Or did Florida pass a similar ammendment?
Posted by: DuWayne | February 5, 2007 1:15 PM
There is a Florida state law that you must be of different sex to get a married. Other that that there are no restrictions. University of Florida started allowing gay couples into the married housing a few years ago (the only super blue county in north Florida), and the complaints were few. Florida is like the rest of the country in reverse. Northern Florida is very much like southern US, and southern Florida is more like New Your City or Ssn Fransisco. The Miami/Fort Lauderdale area is one of the few areas where I can walk hand in hand with my partner without fear.
Posted by: Tulle | February 5, 2007 1:33 PM
I forgot to say that in Miami they could not get enough signatures to put removal of sexual orientation from the county law in Miami. Since then they seem to have focused on other states.
Posted by: Tulle | February 5, 2007 1:36 PM
Too bad a class action for fraud can't be filed against the kristian liars, and damages be sought in the amount of medical claims having to be footed without medical insurance.
Posted by: SharonB | February 5, 2007 2:46 PM
Does this ruling have anything to do with the similar ruling from the Michigan Appeals Court on 'penetrative sex during the commission of a felony making it a sex crime equivalent to rape' that you discussed earlier -- which included the dicta that 'since adultery is a felony in Michigan law...'
There apparently was a ruling from the Supreme Court of Michigan that statutes should be construed as written, whether or not they lead to an unduly harsh or irrational result. The ruling above seems to have been the Appeals court's way of protesting the Supreme Court ruling as well.
It IS a shame that there is no way that a vote obtained by this sort of fraud can be voided, the way another type of contract can be -- yes, I am arguing that a vote can be seen as a cotract between voters and the recipients of the vote. It would be hard to enforce such a ruling on 'grey areas,' but when the fraud is this blatant...
Posted by: Prup aka Jim Benton | February 5, 2007 3:55 PM
Seeing it as a contract would not get you anywhere - the Michigan Courts are just as ruthless there - all consumer protections have been thrown out - contracts are enforced as written, period. The concept of adhesion contracts was eliminated from Michigan law a few years ago by the Supremes. Along with every other protection of that sort in contract law.
You could perhaps argue fraudulent misrepresentation, but you'd have to prove (1) that the voters heard the lies, (2) that they relied on them in their voting, and (3) that it would not have passed without such reliance - good luck on that. Except that it isn't a contract - there are no penalties legally for lying for political votes.
Posted by: Disgusted Beyond Belief | February 6, 2007 11:21 AM
In addition to the quotes you provide, there are plenty of other quotes from Gary Glenn of the Michigan AFA, that also show this bait-and-switch:
http://homepage.mac.com/akiste/iblog/C2076943558/E20070205084654/index.html
Posted by: Alan | February 6, 2007 12:06 PM
Alan, thanks for that additional ammunition.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2007 12:38 PM
One of the reasons that we should always be wary of the initiative process. There is no legislative record, no drafts and nothing to show the spirit of the law, so we have to go to the text, which is what the Michigan courts have to do if they want to have their decisions upheld by the Supreme Court. And the text in this case is not what the group was peddling, it was the big gay boogieman. I think that ballot initiatives and referendum represent a real danger to the public simply because of the law of unintended consiquences.
Posted by: Frito | February 6, 2007 1:08 PM
Bankrolled it? Shouldn't the Diocese start paying taxes, then? I thought religious organizations like this were supposed to stay out of politics. If they are getting that deeply involved in politicall issues, they are receiving representation without taxation, and this ought to be remedied.
Posted by: Steve | February 7, 2007 5:57 PM
We'll be dealing with this crap in Colorado soon too, I'm sure. We just had to spend voter energy on whether to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and also on whether we should allow civil unions. The marriage AMENDMENT (gah) passed, the civil unions ref didn't. Sad day.
Posted by: Andrea | February 8, 2007 9:53 AM