Advertisement

Federal Judge Overturns Michigan’s Ban On Same-Sex Benefits For Public Employees

Doak Bloss and Gerardo Ascheri, one of many couples who lost their benefits because of Michigan’s 2011 law. CREDIT: AP PHOTO/AL GOLDIS
Doak Bloss and Gerardo Ascheri, one of many couples who lost their benefits because of Michigan’s 2011 law. CREDIT: AP PHOTO/AL GOLDIS

The Sixth Circuit may have upheld Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, but some same-sex couples still have something to celebrate this week. A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the state’s law banning the same-sex partners of public employees from receiving benefits is unconstitutional.

The law in question was passed just back in 2011. It specifically infringed on municipalities that were already providing benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of city employees. Five couples whose benefits were cut by the law’s passage filed the complaint that led to this decision.

Judge David Lawson, a Clinton appointee, pointed out that the marriage rulings are not relevant in this case because “this is case is not about marriage.” Rather, he wrote, it has to do with whether a state “may adopt a narrow definition of family, and pass laws that penalize those unions and households that do not conform.” Only public employees with same-sex partners are impacted by the law, he explained, and it imposes a significant financial burden on them by cutting their benefits.

The state argued that the law “demonstrates a preference for marriage,” but Lawson was not at all persuaded. “It is curious,” he noted, “that the defendant claims to promote marriage by enacting restrictions that fall most heavily on a discrete group that cannot marry under law. The defendant, in essence, justifies discriminating against a group by noting that the law promotes the interests of the group’s counterpart. That is no justification at all. Discrimination against one group cannot be justified merely because the legislature prefers another group.”

Advertisement

Lawson also countered the state’s claims that the law would save money, noting it may actually cost Michigan money. Not only will employees no longer pay state income tax on the benefits they received, but they may instead rely on Medicaid or other government-sponsored health care programs in lieu of insurance. Likewise, local governments save money when they can recruit and retain employees by offering benefits otherwise only available in the private sector.

The law was ruled unconstitutional and the state was permanently enjoined from enforcing it.