Michigan Ballot Proposal 04-02

This is a forward from the Detroit Free Press about the upcoming vote. On the ballot will unfortunately be a very important proposal to us.  Michigan voters will decide on Nov 2 to amend the state constitution to exclude gay couples from forming unions.  This amendment will not only outlaw "gay marriages" but will prohibit the state government from recognizing our relationships in any way.  Under current law, Ryan's employer (a state university) is allowed to offer domestic partner benefits.  Thankfully I have insurance from my own employer...but we have friends that could lose medical insurance for both their partner and their children. 

 

In just 7 weeks, all of this could be changed for the worse.    

 

I understand that not everyone is open minded to the thought of two men being married and some people find homosexuality to be completely wrong.  I have faith that my family and friends will see through this hatred and not vote for discrimination!

 

Please take a look and pass this on to anyone who you might think would be helped by having a better understanding of just what it means.

 

If you have not already registered to vote, please do so!!!  The deadline in Michigan is October 2nd.  You can even register online at https://electionimpact.votenet.com/johnkerry/

 

Larry

*********************************

Subject: Questions, answers on Michigan gay marriage issue, Detroit Free Press


Detroit Free Press, MI, September 13, 2004 http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gaymarriage13e_20040913.htm

Questions, answers on Michigan gay marriage issue
BY DAWSON BELL, FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Michigan voters will join those from 10 other states on Nov. 2 to decide whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The proposal, brought to the ballot by a petition drive after the Legislature declined to approve it, is intended to block recognition of same-sex marriages in Michigan, something its backers fear could be foisted on the state by the courts. Opponents call the proposal an extreme reaction to a non-threat that will undermine basic civil rights for gays and lesbians, and even some heterosexuals who benefit from employers' gay-friendly policies.

This side of the presidential election, the marriage proposal has the potential to become the most hotly contested issue on the 2004 ballot. Here's a look at its highlights:


QUESTION: What does it say?
ANSWER: Voters will see this on the ballot: Proposal 04-02. A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS A 'MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION' FOR ANY PURPOSE. The proposal would amend the state constitution to provide that "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."

Q: What will it do?
A: Prohibit public officials in Michigan from recognizing or according marriage benefits to anyone other than heterosexual couples. That means public officials could not record or otherwise recognize a same-sex marriage and would not be required to provide marriage benefits (for example, spousal health care coverage) to the partners of unmarried employees.

Beyond that, proponents and opponents disagree about the amendment's reach.


Q: Why is it needed?
A: Proponents, led by Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, say the amendment is needed to preclude a redefinition of marriage by judicial action as has occurred in other places. Most notably and recently in Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court ruled that a prohibition on same-sex marriage was illegal discrimination. Traditional marriage is the foundation of society and vital to the well being of children, they say.

Opponents, led by the Coalition for a Fair Michigan, say it is not. Michigan has a law that prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriage and should not amend its constitution to limit rights, they say.

Q: Is Michigan the only state taking the issue to voters?
A: No. Ten other states have elections on the definition of marriage scheduled for Nov. 2. Louisianans will vote Sept. 18. Missouri voters approved a marriage amendment in August. Voters in four other states adopted constitutional amendments limiting marriage rights between 1998 and 2000.

Q: Would the Michigan amendment prohibit civil unions?
A: Yes. At least as the term is in common use today -- official sanction of a marriage-like relationship between two people of the same sex. Of course, Michigan does not currently recognize such arrangements.

But both sides in the debate agree that the amendment is intended to, and almost certainly would, prevent the Legislature from creating an alternative form of recognition for same-sex relationships.

Q: What about employee benefits accorded to domestic partners and their dependents by some municipalities and public universities?
A: Proponents and opponents of the amendment say they would be prohibited to the extent they mimic benefits for married employees. Opponents argue that an unspecified number of children would be unjustly deprived of health care in the process. Proponents say they believe the number would be small and that alternative coverage could be made available.

Existing contracts between public employers and employee organizations that provide such benefits would not be affected, but those provisions could not be renewed in subsequent contracts, proponents say. Opponents claim existing contracts might be subject to legal challenge.

Q: Would the prohibitions apply to employers in the private sector?
A: Proponents say no; opponents say maybe.

Q: Why not just prohibit same-sex marriage and be done with it?
A: Drafters of the amendment concluded that if the language did not specifically address other arrangements, it would leave the door open for courts to require that gay and lesbian relationships be recognized as marriages in every respect except name. That, they say, is what happened in Vermont, the only state that officially recognizes civil unions.

Q: Will the additional language -- "similar union for any purpose" -- invite lawsuits if the amendment is adopted?
A: Of course.

Julius Zomper, spokesman for the Fair Michigan group, says marriage amendment lawsuits will become a cottage industry in Michigan. Zomper predicted the Michigan language, which he describes as among the most expansive proposed anywhere in the country, will ultimately be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as too vague to be enforced.

Patrick Gillen, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center who helped draft the amendment, disagrees. But given the nature of the debate, litigation is inevitable, he says.

Gillen also notes that every significant constitutional amendment ever enacted has been extensively interpreted by courts. Furthermore, he says, simplifying the language -- or even dropping the proposal altogether -- wouldn't put an end to litigation over marriage rights.

Q: If approved by voters, will this put an end to the debate?
A: No.

Advocates of same-sex marriage have not been dissuaded by electoral setbacks elsewhere. In six statewide votes around the country on the issue since 1998, backers of traditional marriage have failed to win by a greater than a 2-1 margin only once (in Hawaii, in 1998, where the yes vote was 59.2 percent).

But legal challenges to the states' refusal to recognize nontraditional marriage have increased.

While Michigan's constitutional amendment presumably would withstand challenge in state courts, it still would be the likely target of a federal lawsuit. Some legal observers believe that the issue cannot be settled by anything short of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution or decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Q: What kind of campaigns should we expect?
A: It depends in large part on how successful each side is organizing and raising money.

Citizens for the Protection of Marriage put on a remarkable performance collecting 500,000 petition signatures without having much of either in place at the outset. The group plans to continue to rely heavily on a grassroots participation, especially from the religious community and social conservatives. Campaign director Marlene Elwell says she also is trying to raise money for a media campaign.

Fair Michigan is drawing its support from more politically active sectors, including business and labor groups, and among opinion leaders. Zomper says the group hopes the Michigan campaign will attract national attention, and the money to pay for a robust media campaign.

Q: Would Michigan's national reputation and business climate suffer if public entities could not offer benefits to same-sex couples?
A: Opponents of the proposal say they believe a prohibition on benefits for same-sex couples would harm employee recruitment, especially at public universities, and send a signal that Michigan is an unwelcoming, intolerant place.

Proponents of the amendment say they don't believe domestic partner benefits are a significant factor in the state's overall reputation or business climate.

Q: Is the ballot proposal being pushed by Republicans because they think it will increase the turnout of voters who will support President George W. Bush?
A: The ballot proposal committee is officially nonpartisan. The Michigan GOP has endorsed the proposal, while state Democrats generally regard it as unnecessary and divisive.

The effect on turnout, however, is uncertain in a presidential election year, especially one in which passions are running as high as they seem to be on Bush and Democratic opponent John Kerry. Even less certain is whether higher turnout would help Bush, since polling indicates some of the strongest support for the amendment is among African-American voters, who are expected to vote overwhelmingly for Kerry.


Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6604 or dbell@freepress.com.