by Jessica Carreras
LANSING – Yesterday, a decision was made that shook the LGBT community across the state. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the language of the amendment that defined marriage in Michigan as between one man and one woman precluded unmarried couples from receiving domestic partnership health care benefits. The decision affects hundreds of Michigan couples and their families who relied on one person's health care plan. It is the first ruling on the language of any state marriage amendment of this type, and many believe it will set a harrowing precedent for future court decisions of the same kind.
In 2005, National Pride at Work, Inc. and numerous individuals in same-sex relationships brought an action in the Ingham Circuit Court to clarify that the prohibition of same-sex marriages or similar unions would not include health benefits provided by one partner's public employer. The court ruled in their favor, but the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeals in 2007.
The majority decision passed down yesterday in a 5-2 vote stated that "The amendment prohibits public employers from recognizing a same-sex domestic partnership as a union similar to marriage for any purpose, including for the purpose of providing health-insurance benefits."
Justice Marilyn Kelly, joined by Justice Michael F. Cavanagh, wrote a dissenting opinion. They remarked that the language of the amendment "prohibits nothing more than the recognition of same-sex marriages or similar unions."
"We're extremely disappointed with the decision," said Affirmations Community Center Community Organizing Coordinator Bashar Makhay. "This has left thousands of children with loving families without access to health care."
ACLU of Michigan, who spearheaded the effort to stop health care from being considered to be under the umbrella of marital benefits, voiced their disappointment as well. "It's both flawed and unfortunate," Executive Director Kari Moss said of the decision. Moss pointed out that the decision came despite statements made by proponents of Proposal 2 who said that their only intent was to limit marriage benefits, not to take away health care benefits. In fact, the majority opinion made no mention of the statements at all. "The consequence is potentially very serious," added Moss. "Health care is extraordinarily expensive."
For families with children, it is especially true. Tom Patrick, 50, of Superior Township, lives with his partner Dennis, 45, and their five children. Four of the children are adopted and one is a foster child. All seven of them rely on the health care benefits Dennis receives from his full-time position at Eastern Michigan University.
Given this outcome, the Patricks may have to make some very tough decisions. Several of their children have mental issues, and one has a serious seizure disorder. Tom, who works part-time as a teacher for Plymouth Canton Community Schools, fears that he may have to go back to work full time to ensure that he and their entire family can have health care. "It's very disheartening, in this time when we're doing all we can to care for our children, that some are making decisions to remove these benefits," Tom Patrick said. "Our goal is to take care of these kids and it feels threatened that these benefits may be removed."
"It's a sad day in Michigan when we decide which children and families are valuable enough to cover," he continued. "It's difficult for my children to know what's happening and for them to see and experience that someone might not think that they need to be cared for."
For A.T. Miller, 50, who is the director of the Global Intercultural Experience at the University of Michigan, and his partner Craig, 52, the decision affects not only them, but also their parents. All four of their parents moved to Ann Arbor, and Craig, who works part-time at the Chelsea hospital, spends much of his time caring for them. "This imperils our ability to care for our elderly parents," A.T. Miller said.
Moss and the ACLU admit that their next course of action is unclear. Making sure that none of these families lose their health care is their top priority for now. "Our immediate concern is to make sure that no children lose their health care," said ACLU attorney Jay Kaplan.
Their hope is that, for the time being, employers will adopt alternative language that will help the families retain their health care coverage. This solution, however, is short-term and unstable, requiring large amounts of paperwork.
Moreover, with this decision, many believe that it will only be the start of the amendment's interpretation that affects same-sex couples and their families negatively. "All kinds of things could start being questioned," said Miller. "(This decision) opens the door for that."
