Michigan Court Sends Warning to Florida

MIAMI – Today the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that that state's
amendment banning "gay marriage' also prohibits public employers such as
cities, counties and universities from offering domestic partnership
benefits to unmarried employees.
According to the Associated Press, Michigan has "up to 20" public employers
that offered domestic partnership benefits. Today's ruling will likely force
these employers to remove the existing legal protections and benefits from
public employees in Michigan .
"This regressive ruling in Michigan should put to rest the absurd claim that
these amendments won't impact benefits," said Heddy Pena, Board Member of
Florida Red and Blue – the organization running the SayNo2 Campaign.
"We've been saying all along that Florida 's amendment – Amendment 2 – could
mean an actual loss of benefits as we've seen today in Michigan under a
similar amendment," Pena said.
In spite of this ruling, the sponsors of Amendment 2 claim even today that,
"our amendment will not invalidate benefits granted from domestic
partnerships or any other source." [www.Yes2Marriage.com]
"That's clearly not true. It never was," said Derek Newton, SayNo2 Campaign
Manager. "The amendment sponsors have written some of the broadest and least
clear language in the country and it's obvious that what's happening in
Michigan today will happen here if we pass Amendment 2."
In fact, the only independent analysis of Amendment 2 was conducted by the
Florida Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR).
That analysis clearly links today's Michigan decision and the Florida
amendment. The EDR report concluded, "If domestic partnership registries are
deemed substantially equivalent to marriage, their termination could place
registrants at risk of losing specified rights and benefits, such as those
related to health insurance."
Florida currently has at least a dozen establish Domestic Partnership
registries administered by public entities that provide benefits similar to
those struck down in Michigan . Florida examples include the City of Tampa ,
Broward County , Monroe County , City of Miami Beach and the City of
Gainesville . Florida 's largest county – Miami-Dade is due to vote on a
domestic partnership benefit plan this month.
Of special concern, are the following excerpts from the Associated Press
coverage of the ruling:
"Justice Stephen Markman, writing for the majority, said that while
marriages and domestic partnerships aren't identical, they are similar.'
"Dissenting Justices Michael Cavanagh and Marilyn Kelly said the
constitutional amendment prohibits nothing more than same-sex marriages or
similar unions. They argued that circumstances surrounding the election
suggest Michigan voters didn't intend to take away people's benefits.
"The couples represented, by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan,
argued that the ballot committee that sponsored Proposal 2 "consistently and
repeatedly" assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting
marriage."
The Michigan finding that domestic partnerships are 'similar' to marriages
should be the clearest indication of all that Florida 's proposed ban on any
relationship that is "treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent
thereof" could have a similar impact.
Echoing the forthcoming Florida debate it's especially noteworthy that the
sponsors of the Michigan proposal assured voters their amendment only
protected marriage. Florida Amendment 2's chief sponsor, John Stemberger has
taken a similar and dishonest path saying repeatedly, "The reality is that a
'yes' vote on Amendment 2 will do one thing and one thing alone. It defines
marriage as the union of a man and a woman…" [www.Yes2Marriage.com]
"This should be a major, bright red warning sign to Florida voters – if you
don't want to take away existing protections and benefits, don't vote for
Amendment 2." Pena said.