On February 1, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals released its Opinion in National Pride at Work, Inc v Governor, Docket No. 265870. There were 63 parties in this case.
The issue in this case was whether public universities and governmental entities within the State of Michigan could extend benefits such as healthcare insurance to same-sex / domestic partners of their employees. Michigan’s Attorney General Michael Cox appealed the Ingham county Circuit court’s decision that the marriage amendment, article 1, section 25 of the Michigan constitution, did not preclude public employers from extending same sex-domestic partnership benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed.
It was not hard to see where the court was going with its decision. An extensive prefatory comment made the court’s position clear:
“We begin by noting the relatively significant
public attention this case has received. In that context, we feel constrained
to observe at the outset that this case is not about the lifestyle or personal
living decisions of individual citizens. Rather, it is about whether the marriage
amendment may permissibly impose certain limitations on the state and its
governmental subdivisions.
More specifically, this case is about whether the marriage amendment may
prohibit governmental subdivisions from entering into employment benefit agreements
that define eligibility for benefits using criteria, based on lifestyle or
personal living decisions that allegedly violate the policy choice approved in
the marriage amendment. Further, we observe that the arguments advanced in
several of the amicus briefs regarding the effect of the amendment on employee
recruitment, retention and morale, and marketplace competitiveness are
irrelevant considerations in interpreting the constitutional amendment at
issue. The vote to adopt the marriage amendment charted the policy direction
for Michigan. Our decision only interprets the amendment and applies it as
interpreted to this particular situation presented in this case. Finally, we
note that our interpretation of the language of the marriage amendment is one of
first impression, insofar as it concerns a relatively unique phraseology. Thus,
while other states have adopted constitutional amendments and/or statutes that
place limitations on governmental recognition
of same-sex relationships, no court in any of these states has had the occasion
to interpret language approximating the “similar union” language found in
Michigan’s marriage amendment. Consequently, guidance from the decisions of other
jurisdictions is unavailing.”
The court rejected the
plaintiff-appellee’s arguments about social concerns and changing societal
norms as irrelevant, choosing to decide this case strictly on black letter law.
The court stated that “the primary objective of constitutional interpretation
is to realize the intent of the people by whom and for whom the constitution
was ratified. Generally, a court discerns the common understanding of
constitutional text by applying each term’s plain meaning at the time of
ratification, but if the constitution employs technical legal terms, it must
construe those words in their technical, legal sense.”
The court made it clear that
its decision rested upon the public policy of the State that favors marriage as
a unique relationship and a civil contract between a man and a woman which has
been licensed and solemnized. Further, the court emphasized that ‘[t]he marital
contract affects public interests, and it is afforded special legal status.
Marriage invokes legal rights, responsibilities and benefits not afforded to
unmarried persons.”
The court rejected arguments
by the University of Michigan Board of Regents, Wayne State University,
Washtenaw County, Ingham County, and the City of Ann Arbor, holding that their
recognition of domestic partnership agreements by employee and same-sex
partners violates the constitutional prohibition against the recognition of
nonmarital unions. The court held that autonomous governing boards of
Michigan's public universities are subject to the public policy mandate of the
constitutional prohibition against the recognition of same-sex marriage,
rejecting the universities’ argument that they were entitled to constitutional
independence.
Additionally, the court held
that a home rule city remains subject to the constitution and laws of the
state. The court expressly rejected the city’s argument that the constitutional
prohibition in the marriage amendment conflicted with the city’s statutory
authority to voluntarily provide for health care benefits for the same-sex
domestic partners of employees. The same rationale was applied to Michigan
counties.
Read the full opinion in National Pride at Work v Governor here.
To visit Jeanne Hannah's website for more information, click on the photo below:
Hello Diane,
Your friend's premarital interest in real estate is not affected by cohabitation with a woman. Cohabitation alone doesn't give her any right to a share of his real estate.
But if they marry, unless he protects his real estate with a prenuptial agreement, he may have to later fight a claim that she contributed to appreciation and that the real estate is joint property.
There are a series of articles about prenuptial agreements on this blog. Click on the Prenup | Postnup Category on the right hand column. Also see my website on the Practice Areas page for an article about prenups and postnups. http://jeannehannah.com
There are several important things to remember about prenups. They should be entered into many weeks before a marriage to avoid a claim of pressure or coercion. Also to avoid a claim on fraud, a rather detailed list of what each party owns should be attached. In addition, the party who did not hire an attorney to draft the prenup should have her own attorney or waive the right to have an attorney.
Jeanne
Posted by: Jeanne M. Hannah | May 11, 2011 at 08:26 AM
Thank you for taking me comment and question.
A friend of mine lives in Michigan and owns a home and land on his own. He has been living with a woman for about 6 months and between the two, they are deciding to marry. My question, although he is in his late 40's and that does not matter, but does matter is that he has his home and land belonging to HIMSELF and now that he is getting ready to marry this woman that he has only been living with for 6 months......HOW CAN HE PROTECT HIS PROPERTY BEFORE HE MARRIES THIS WOMAN? Michigan Law: does living with someone for 6 months or more constitute ownership....I think Michigan does not have a domestic law that says this.....??? Also, if they marry, can the man who owns all his property prepare a document "PRE-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT" in order to keep his property his own in case this marriage goes sour in divorce???
Please let me know as we as parents and grandparents live to keep our loved ones safe. God Bless
Posted by: Diane Bradford | May 11, 2011 at 12:28 AM