Search News


Browse Archives

News

Judge Backs Universities on Same-Sex Benefits

September 30, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Michigan voters last year approved a measure stating that "the union of one man or one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

While the vote clarified the state's stance on gay marriage (against), it did not resolve the question of benefits for the partners of gay employees, which a number of public universities in the state provide. Some opponents of gay marriage vowed to try to kill such benefits, but a ruling by a state judge on Tuesday said that the change in Michigan's Constitution did not in any way bar public universities from awarding benefits to domestic partners of employees.

The ruling, by Judge Joyce Draganchuk, came in a dispute about the awarding of such benefits by the City of Kalamazoo. But the University of Michigan and Wayne State University, as well as the American Association of University Professors, filed briefs with the court urging it to rule that the marriage amendment did not restrict public universities from offering domestic partner benefits. The brief from the two universities said that offering such benefits was "vital to the universities' ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest faculty and staff."

Judge Draganchuk explicitly cited the higher education briefs in her decision and wrote it broadly to refer to all public entities in Michigan, not just Kalamazoo.

She cited several reasons to say that public universities' benefits were not limited by the anti-gay-marriage measure. "Health care benefits are not among the statutory rights or benefits of marriage. An individual does not receive health care benefits for his or her spouse as a matter of legal right upon getting married. If a spouse receives health care benefits, it is as a result of a contractual provision or policy directive of the employer," Judge Draganchuk wrote in her decision.

She rejected the idea that awarding such benefits amounts to marriage and noted that state sanction is required for marriage, but not for an employer who wants to provide benefits. She also noted that marriages can only be ended through a legal process, but that health benefits typically end when someone leaves a job with an employer.

Universities in Michigan have said that they will continue to offer domestic partner benefits unless they are ordered not to. Some anti-gay-marriage groups have vowed to appeal the ruling and have hinted that they may challenge university benefits policies in the future. But lawyers for those groups were not available on Thursday.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Judge Backs Universities on Same-Sex Benefits

  • Same-sex benefits in Michigan
  • Posted by Gary Glenn , President at American Family Association of Michigan on September 30, 2005 at 11:35am EDT
  • As a candidate for the circuit court in 2004, Judge Dragenchuk was endorsed by two "gay" political action committees. The only surprise would be if she had not ruled in favor of forcing taxpayers to subsidize spousal benefits for same-sex partners. Her decision will be appealed, and both sides expect it will eventually be overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court.

  • Posted by Larry on September 30, 2005 at 12:27pm EDT
  • Glenn, While I appreciate your efforts to help the American family, I seriously wonder whether you have actually read the decision and/or can point to any specific legal errors. Likewise, I would be interested in how you know that “both sides expect it will eventually be overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court.” I should warn you that I think that a far bigger threat to the American family is talking about a court decision without reading it, so I am sure that you have actually read this decision. I eagerly await your contribution to this fascinating topic!

  • Making the Policy Unbiased
  • Posted by Tolana M. on September 30, 2005 at 2:08pm EDT
  • I'm assuming this issue is news again because these are state institutions as opposed to corporations. But here's a question that applies to both arenas:

    If the universities want to give benefits to same-sex partners, wouldn't it be discrimination to disallow benefits for different-sex partners? If the status of married vs. partners is not a factor in order to receive benefits, then those benefits should be applied to same-sex AND different-sex partners.

    I would think that insurance companies would want something like a marriage license to clearly delineate who gets benefits and for how long. Divorce clearly severs a spouse from benefits, but they only have one or two person's say-so about a partner status. Imagine the mess created when partners leave but don't report it to the insurance company, or when one partner says the relationship is over and the other one disagrees. And wouldn't it be easy to say "yeah, we're partners" in order to get benefits for a friend?

  • Posted by Joy on September 30, 2005 at 2:08pm EDT
  • While universities and other businesses across the country are handing out benefits to domestic partners of employees, I wonder why it's so hard for them to think about benefits for their part-time employees? I find it quite ironic that partners not recognized by law are entitled to benefits that part-timers can't get. Fair is fair (or should be).

  • Posted by A Gay Faculty Member on September 30, 2005 at 9:17pm EDT
  • Gary, I'm really curious -- how are these benefits "spousal benefits?" People have to be married to be able to receive "spousal benefits." Aren't these really just health care benefits? (They haven't been renamed in Michigan, have they?)

    Let's call them what they are. That some public universities in Michigan offer health-care benefits to non-married partners (who happen to be gay) doesn't transform health-care benefits into spousal benefits.

    And like it or not, some of the best and brightest faculty members are gay or lesbian, and if the State of Michigan wants to attract the best and brightest, the State needs to offer equivalent benefits for all. It's smart public policy, that's all.

  • Posted by Anon on October 4, 2005 at 9:07pm EDT
  • This case was not about whether the state of Michigan can offer benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees. Rather, the question is whether single people can receive benefits for people other than a same-sex partner.

    Unfortunately Judge Draganchak's decision impacts very real people. I was denied health insurance for my sister (she has a severe mental illness) because she was my sister rather than my lesbian partner. It angers me that gay & lesbian professors (backed by the ACLU) are suing to deny my family insurance.

    Judge Draganchuk that a select group of individuals (those engaged in a sexual relationship with a person of the same gender) could be treated preferentially.

    While