The Michigan Daily

Last Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court actually regressed the equal rights movement. In a 5-2 decision, justices upheld an appeals court ruling that illogically determined that the state's 2004 constitutional ban on gay marriage also prohibits public sector employers from extending domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples. The University won't immediately be affected by the decision, but its policy of offering benefits to "other qualified adults" stands on shaky ground - that is, unless the state reevaluates its discriminatory ban.

When voters went to the polls in 2004, they were asked whether they supported a ban on gay marriage in the state. They weren't asked whether state employees could receive benefits for their same-sex partner. Thanks to Mike Cox, the state attorney general, that decision was made for the voters when Cox interpreted the amendment to also ban same-sex benefits for state employees. His position was upheld both in a February 2007 appeals court ruling and last week by the state Supreme Court.

Fortunately, the University already has its defenses in place. Its thinly veiled policy extending benefits to "other qualified adults" who fulfill certain criteria sidesteps the barriers built by Cox. This approach allows the University to provide benefits to same-sex couples if they meet these criteria.

So the University doesn't provide benefits to same-sex partners per se, just "other qualified adults" who happen to have lived with a University employee for more than six months, are not able to be legally married in Michigan and share either a joint checking or credit account, among other qualifications. Clearly, the two are very different.

The University may be confident that its policy, which it claims is compliant with the amendment, could hold up in court, but that's probably wishful thinking. While the University's response to the injustice resulting from the 2004 election is certainly praiseworthy, the policy is living on borrowed time. With these band-aid measures, the longevity of benefits for "other qualified adults" is only as long as the time the policy can survive the justice system.

The University has done what it could to circumvent these unfair laws, but it can hardly offer a permanent solution to the problem. The responsibility belongs to Michigan's government and voters. The ban should never have been passed in the first place, and the blatantly unfair treatment of same-sex couples employed in the public sector is but one of its harmful consequences. Four years later, it's high time to confront the problem head on and turn back the mistakes of 2004.

Article Tools