|
No. 133429, 133554
| National Pride At Work, Inc., et al, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Ingham - Draganchuk, J.) |
|
|
| Governor of Michigan, |
|
|
Defendant-Appellant, |
|
D.J. Pascoe |
| and |
|
|
| City of Kalamazoo, |
|
|
Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Attorney General, |
|
B. Eric Restuccia |
Intervening Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| National Pride At Work, Inc., a non-profit organiza- |
|
Scott L. Gorland |
| tion on behalf of its Michigan Members, et al., |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellants, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Ingham - Draganchuk, J.) |
|
|
| Governor of Michigan and City of Kalamazoo, |
|
|
Defendants-Appellees, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Attorney General, |
|
|
Intervening Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Intervening Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
American Association of University Professors' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
American Family Association of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Citizens for the Protection of Marriage's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
City of Ann Arbor's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
International Union, UAW and its Local 6000's Amici Curiae Brief>>
LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights
Campaign Foundation, Triangle Foundation, Michigan Equality, The Women Lawyers Association
of Michigan, and Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, Inc.'s (Affiliates: Ann Arbor, Bay City,
Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Holland, Iron Mountain, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Keweenaw, Lansing, Mt.
Pleasant, Port Huron, St. Joseph, and Traverse City) Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Education Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Family Forum's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Pride at Work, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 517M, The American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization Michigan Chapter (MI-AFL-CIO), The
Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 459, and the Lansing
Association of Human Rights' (LAHR) Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Professors of Law's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan State Medical Society's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan State University's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Regents of the University of Michigan, The Board of Governors of Wayne State University, Central
Michigan Board of Trustees, The Board of Control of Northern Michigan University, Michigan
Technological University, Saginaw Valley State University, and The Board of Regents of Eastern
Michigan University's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
On November 2, 2004, Michigan voters approved a ballot proposal that added the “Marriage Amendment” to the Michigan Constitution. The Marriage Amendment took effect on December 18, 2004. At that time, several public employers, including state universities and various city and county governments, had policies or agreements that extended health care benefits to their employees’ same-sex domestic partners. In addition, the Office of State Employer and United Auto Workers Local 6000 had agreed to include same-sex domestic partner benefits in the benefit packages for Local 6000’s state employee members. On March 16, 2005, in response to a state legislator’s request, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion concluding that the Marriage Amendment prohibits acknowledgement of same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex relationships, and that the only relationship that may be given any recognition or acknowledgement of validity is the union of one man and one woman in marriage. The plaintiffs sued Governor Jennifer Granholm in her official capacity, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Marriage Amendment does not prohibit public employers from conferring health benefits on employees’ same-sex domestic partners. The plaintiffs later added the city of Kalamazoo as a defendant, after the city announced that, unless a court ruled that it could do so without violating the Marriage Amendment, the city would no longer provide same-sex domestic partner health care benefits for its employees. The Governor filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs. The Attorney General then intervened and asked the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ lawsuit. But the trial court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, declaring that the Marriage Amendment does not prohibit public employers from entering into contractual agreements to provide same-sex domestic partner fringe benefits, because health care benefits are not statutory rights or benefits of marriage. The court reasoned that the public employers were not “recognizing” domestic partnerships as equivalent to marriage. The Attorney General appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed in a unanimous published opinion. The Court of Appeals held that the domestic partnership agreements were similar to marriage. Providing same-sex domestic partner benefits based on those relationships recognized those relationships as a marriage, thus violating the Marriage Amendment, the Court of Appeals reasoned. Noting that this was an issue of first impression, the appellate panel found that the language of Michigan’s Marriage Amendment was unique; as a result, decisions from other states were not relevant, the Court of Appeals said. The language of the amendment was unambiguous, said the court; accordingly, extrinsic evidence regarding the circumstances of the amendment’s adoption was unnecessary and irrelevant. The court gave its decision immediate effect. The plaintiffs and the Governor appeal.
Top of Page
|
