Oct. 24, 2004, Ann Arbor News, prior to the election:
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan,
responds to concerns that the amendment language will threaten health benefits: “Scare tactic.” – Glenn goes on to insist public and private employers could continue to offer domestic-partnership benefits if they want to.
“The marriage amendment’s plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose.”
The Michigan Court of Appeals, Feb. 2
“It just keeps going – there’s no end. It’s discrimination. It’s another action aimed at demeaning GLBT people … It’s insulting. I feel indignant. It’s a question of people struggling for civil rights. First it was the amendment, now it’s the courts. I feel like there’s going to be a railroad car waiting to take me away.”
– Lapeer resident Gale Crooks, co-chairman of the Lapeer County Equal Rights Alliance, an advocacy and support organization for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community, reacting to the Court of Appeals decision in The Flint Journal, Feb. 5
“No one knew for sure what the language would mean.”
Brad Snavely, executive director of the Michigan Family Forum, who said he now that a court has said the language denies benefits, he hopes judges in other states will follow suit. L.A. Times, Feb. 3
(Editor’s note: Of the 26 states that ban same-sex marriage, 17 use broad language that could be interpreted to prohibit a wide range of benefits. In
Ohio, for instance, two lower courts have ruled that same-sex couples are not entitled to protections under domestic violence laws. That issue is still being litigated.)
“Nothing that’s on the books is going to change.”
– Kristina Hemphill, anti-gay marriage campaign spokeswoman, told the Detroit News a week before the 2004 election. Backers of the amendment repeatedly said it would not be used to take away domestic-partner benefits.
“We’re very disappointed by this result, and they produced a heartless result. It was never the voters’ intention in 2004 to take away health-insurance benefits from families and children.”
– Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the Michigan ACLU, called the decision “a misguided analysis,” and indicated the ACLU will be appealing the decision.
“When you look back and see the faces and household compositions, there are a lot of families with children.”
– Terri Koreck, speaking to the Ann Arbor News Feb. 4. Koreck receives health benefits through her partner, a University of Michigan professor. Koreck is studying nursing, but said she wouldn’t be able to attend nursing school without health benefits.