# Michigan Court of Appeal strikes down benefits for unmarried couples, straight or gay **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2007, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637 "2007-02-10T19:10:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2007, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/1 "2007-02-10T19:10:27Z")
The Michigan Court of Appeal recently held that the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is broad enough to ban the state from giving marital employment benefits to any unmarried couple, straight or gay: [Michigan court’s ruling would ban partner benefits statewide](http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/publish/article_4638.php): > [@](#): > > A 15-page decision from a unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Michigan’s one-sentence ban on same-sex marriage effectively outlaws public domestic partner benefits as well. In fact, according to the panel, no state agency can give effect to any kind of benefit or take any official notice of an unmarried relationship, whether gay or straight. The case is likely to go to the state Supreme Court, according to the article. Is the wording of Michigan provision similar to the other state amendments? Is this case likely to be a persuasive precedent for other states? Is it likely to cause any re-thinking of the amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2007, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/2 "2007-02-11T17:08:24Z")
I’m a little confused. I thought that refusing benefits to unmarried couples was the norm. That’s actually why my husband and I finally tied the knot-- so I could be covered under his medical insurance plan. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/3 "2007-02-11T17:16:03Z")
[QUOTE=Lissa] I’m a little confused. I thought that refusing benefits to unmarried couples was the norm. That’s actually why my husband and I finally tied the knot-- so I could be covered under his medical insurance plan. [/QUOTE] In recent years, businesses have begun to offer benefits to unmarried partners. It makes them more attractive to potential employees. The fact that state offices can’t do so makes them less competitive with the private sector. ---
**Author:** ![ASAKMOTSD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@ASAKMOTSD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASAKMOTSD)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2007, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/4 "2007-02-11T17:38:10Z")
I believe in Michigan it is still illegal for unmarried adults to cohabitate anyway. This does not surprise me in the least. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/5 "2007-02-12T00:17:39Z")
If two people are unwilling to commit to each other, why should the state commit to them? ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/6 "2007-02-12T00:20:19Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] If two people are unwilling to commit to each other, why should the state commit to them? [/QUOTE] Marriage really doesn’t have all that much to do with commitment. It’s a legal seal of recognition on a commitment which already exists. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/7 "2007-02-12T00:27:21Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] If two people are unwilling to commit to each other, why should the state commit to them? [/QUOTE] My, this is a remarkable argument. What exactly is the state “committing”? Recognition of their private arrangement? If it’s your suggestion that it betokens a lack of commitment to not contractually commit to something in violation of the law, I find myself startled. What precisely are you suggesting they should do to show their commitment? ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/8 "2007-02-12T00:31:34Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] If two people are unwilling to commit to each other, why should the state commit to them? [/QUOTE] Huh? The state made it illegal for gays to commit to each other. How convenient for your argument. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/9 "2007-02-12T00:44:33Z")
I hope any unmarried and cohabiting people voting for the amendment are happy now, and also the parents of such. I’d assume this would broaden the base of support for repeal. The war against cohabitation is already lost just about everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/10 "2007-02-12T00:59:26Z")
This is no surprise. Many predicted this result before the measure passed. [QUOTE=ASAKMOTSD] I believe in Michigan it is still illegal for unmarried adults to cohabitate anyway. [/QUOTE] Sort of. Michigan law prohibits “lewd and lascivious” cohabitation. The statute has been read not to prohibit most cohabitation. In \*People v. Davis \* (1940) for example, the court found that two married couples who had swapped partners and lived together were not guilty under the statute despite their admissions that they had cohabited. In \*McCready v. Hoffius \* (1998), the court again held that a landlord could not reject unmarried couples based on the statute because no evidence of an intention to lewdly and lasciviously associate had been produced, despite their intention to cohabit. [http://www.courts.michigan.gov/mji/resources/sabb/Chap3OtherRelatedCrimes.PDF](http://www.courts.michigan.gov/mji/resources/sabb/Chap3OtherRelatedCrimes.PDF) (pp. 170-172) Adultery remains a felony in Michigan, btw. But the Michigan Attorney General recently confessed to the crime. Not only was he not prosecuted–he was reelected. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/11 "2007-02-12T01:09:46Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] This is no surprise. Many predicted this result before the measure passed. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Many vocal opponents of Proposal 2 say the so-called Michigan Marriage Amendment would strip rights from Michigan citizens, including straight couples, and embed discrimination into the state constitution. [http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6866](http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=6866) ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/12 "2007-02-12T01:31:09Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] If two people are unwilling to commit to each other, why should the state commit to them? [/QUOTE] I take this highly personally. I tell you my 10+ years with my SO is a commitment, and one longer than many married couples make. When I do get married, it will be for the fun of getting our families together, the legal benefits, and so that we can speak for each other’s medical needs. I don’t need that piece of paper to affirm my commitment. I am already committed to him. I don’t feel that \*every \*couple living together should automatically be given marital rights, but I do feel there should be some proviso for people like my SO and I, who are and have been together for so long. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/13 "2007-02-12T01:41:27Z")
Here’s the case, btw: [http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/DOCUMENTS/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20070201\_C265870\_104\_265870.OPN.PDF](http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/DOCUMENTS/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20070201_C265870_104_265870.OPN.PDF) ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/14 "2007-02-12T01:43:50Z")
Dude, we need to do one of two things in this state: recognize ALL marriage, or recognize NO marriage. I’d much rather recognize all of them, but picking and choosing is pretty shoddy, if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/15 "2007-02-12T02:06:12Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper] Is the wording of Michigan provision similar to the other state amendments? Is this case likely to be a persuasive precedent for other states? Is it likely to cause any re-thinking of the amendment? [/QUOTE] Michigan: > [@](#): > > To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. [http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fbbrdliviyzcuc3ps2nhbn55)](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fbbrdliviyzcuc3ps2nhbn55)))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-Article-I-25&queryid=16731533&highlight=marriage Arkansas: > [@](#): > > Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman Possible Georgia: > [@](#): > > Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. > (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between personsof the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship. Less possible. Kentucky: > [@](#): > > Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. Possible. Mississippi: > [@](#): > > Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state. Tougher. Montana: > [@](#): > > Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. Tougher. That’s a few of the last batch that passed. You can find all of them here: [http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/index.html](http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/16 "2007-02-12T02:20:50Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper] Is it likely to cause any re-thinking of the amendment? [/QUOTE] It might result in some amendments getting reworded. I doubt it will cause those who voted for the amendments to reconsider their objection to the recognition of same-sex marriages. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/17 "2007-02-12T03:22:47Z")
[QUOTE=Anaamika] I take this highly personally. I tell you my 10+ years with my SO is a commitment, and one longer than many married couples make. When I do get married, it will be for the fun of getting our families together, the legal benefits, and so that we can speak for each other’s medical needs. I don’t need that piece of paper to affirm my commitment. I am already committed to him. I don’t feel that \*every \*couple living together should automatically be given marital rights, but I do feel there should be some proviso for people like my SO and I, who are and have been together for so long. [/QUOTE] I think you have hit on the problem the state has, though…how is the state supposed to know how long you have been with your SO, and how much of committment you have? A marriage certificate is a very cut-and-dried way for the state to be clear on who your SO is, and how significant the committment is that you have. When you say that _you_ don’t need the piece of paper, that’s true…you and your SO I’m sure are very clear on how committed you are. The piece of paper isn’t so much for you, it’s the state’s way of keeping track of these things. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/18 "2007-02-12T03:31:21Z")
Although some predicted it before the vote, some of the most vocal proponents of the gay marriage ban assured people this was not the intent of the effort–and suggested that these were merely scare tactics by the opposition. The Michigan chapter of the AFA, for example, assured voters that they had no interest in stopping anyone’s benefits. Now they are singing a different tune. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/19 "2007-02-12T04:01:36Z")
[QUOTE=CrankyAsAnOldMan] Although some predicted it before the vote, some of the most vocal proponents of the gay marriage ban assured people this was not the intent of the effort–and suggested that these were merely scare tactics by the opposition. The Michigan chapter of the AFA, for example, assured voters that they had no interest in stopping anyone’s benefits. Now they are singing a different tune. [/QUOTE] I have to say, I haven’t been following the issue (in Michigan) closely because I was against the amendment on general principles. But this is a bit kooky: > [@](#): > > the two groups that lead the campaign for passage of the amendment, Citizens for the Protection of Marriage and the American Family Association of Michigan, both insisted that the language concerned “marriage only.” Campaign director Marlene Elwell, according to published reports, said: “This has nothing to do with taking benefits away. This is about marriage between a man and a woman.” > [@](#): > > AFA-Michigan’s brief documented that prior to the 2004 election, prominent spokesmen on both sides of the issue repeatedly told voters that the amendment would eliminate public employee benefits specifically based on government recognition of homosexual or other “domestic partnerships.” From their brief: > [@](#): > > Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment plainly prohibits the State and its political subdivisions, including in their capacity as public employers, from recognizing a \*\*same-sex or other non-marital relationship \*\* as being equal or similar to marriage “for any purpose.” [http://www.afamichigan.org/2006/01/05/afa-michigan-files-amicus-brief-with-appeals-court/#more-138](http://www.afamichigan.org/2006/01/05/afa-michigan-files-amicus-brief-with-appeals-court/#more-138) > [@](#): > > Logically and chronologically, the answer is obvious: government cannot extend benefits to any relationship until after it has first recognized that relationship. Again, how could government offer benefits to any relationship without first recognizing it? If the first government act, i.e., recognition, is prohibited, any question regarding the second act, i.e., granting benefits, is moot. [http://www.afamichigan.org/FINAL.AMICUS.BRIEF.pdf](http://www.afamichigan.org/FINAL.AMICUS.BRIEF.pdf) So they originally said it had nothing to do with benefits and after the thing passed, they say it does and that everyone should have known it before the vote? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2007, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637/20 "2007-02-12T04:25:40Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I think you have hit on the problem the state has, though…how is the state supposed to know how long you have been with your SO, and how much of committment you have? A marriage certificate is a very cut-and-dried way for the state to be clear on who your SO is, and how significant the committment is that you have. When you say that _you_ don’t need the piece of paper, that’s true…you and your SO I’m sure are very clear on how committed you are. The piece of paper isn’t so much for you, it’s the state’s way of keeping track of these things. [/QUOTE] If this were true, then no state in the country would recognize common law marriages. As it is, there are many states which give recognition to a wide range of legal relationships (marriage or otherwise) without any formal piece of paper. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michigan-court-of-appeal-strikes-down-benefits-for-unmarried-couples-straight-or-gay/391637.md?page=2)