May 16, 2008  |  By: CHRIS JOHNSON  | COMMENTS     

A Michigan Supreme Court ruling last week denying same-sex partner health benefits for state employees is prompting at least one state university professor to flee Michigan as gay advocacy groups elsewhere point to the decision as an indicator of the kinds of problems caused by same-sex marriage bans.

Michael Falk, a professor at University of Michigan’s College of Engineering, intends to move away from Michigan next week with his partner, Matthew Scott, a naturalist for the university’s arboretum, to seek opportunities in Maryland.

Even though Michigan’s Supreme Court justices are known to be conservative, Falk said “it was still shocking to hear” that the Supreme Court’s decision was “the final word” on the subject.

“And that’s really the state of things in Michigan,” he said. “There’s really no ultimate protection for civil rights for gay and lesbian people in the state.”

Falk, one of the 21 plaintiffs who brought the case to the Supreme Court, said he planned the move after the Michigan Court of Appeals made a previous ruling in 2007 barring benefits to same-sex couples. The fact that he is leaving so soon after the high court’s decision is coincidental.

The Court of Appeals ruling really made Falk and his partner “reevaluate whether we felt that Michigan was the state we wanted to settle down in long term.”

On May 7, Michigan’s high court ruled 5-2 that state employers, including government offices and schools, cannot extend health insurance benefits to the partners of employees in same-sex relationships.

Justices decided that a same-sex marriage ban in the state constitution, approved by Michigan voters in 2004, prohibits state employers from offering the benefits. The court ruled that the language in the amendment prohibits not only same-sex marriage but also a “similar union for any purpose” and that state employers providing health benefits would be too similar to marriage.

Despite the ruling, state employers and major universities in the state are still claiming the right to provide benefits to the partners of employees by instead extending coverage to adult dependents in employees’ households.

Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, a Michigan gay advocacy group, said a number of employers redrew policies to offer benefits while complying with court decisions.

“We are hoping that all public employers that want to offer these benefits will do the same, including new employers,” he said.

Michigan State University, University of Michigan and Wayne State University enacted changes to their benefits packages after the Court of Appeals made its ruling.

Kent Cassella, Michigan State University’s director of media communications, said the Supreme Court decision would not require his university to take any action.

“We do not believe we are compelled to change what we are currently doing as a result of [the] decision,” he said.

Kelly Cunningham, spokesperson for University of Michigan, said her university “believes that all current benefit offerings are in full compliance with Michigan law.”

lexandra Matish, a lesbian who works in the office of the counsel of Wayne State University, said the school’s new policy complies with the law and would still extend benefits to same-sex couples.

However, Matish said she was “personally and professionally” discouraged by the Supreme Court decision.

“We’ve relied on this kind of language as a way to recruit and retain the best faculty and staff, so it’s certainly a disappointment,” she said.

While Matish is in a same-sex relationship with her partner, Beverly Davidson, a social worker, Matish said court rulings would not affect her benefits because she receives them from her partner’s company.

Falk said he is “not so confident” that the fight has ended even with the change in the benefits language for universities. It’s unclear how the courts would rule on the current benefits if they were disputed, he said.

“I think the people who proposed this amendment in the first place have every intention to challenge the benefits the way they’re currently structured as well,” he said.

Falk said the issue for him and his partner, who both hail from other states, is not so much whether they can expect benefits from the University of Michigan, but whether they can expect they will be protected under state law. The 2004 ballot initiative showed that rights for his family are subject to the direct vote of Michigan’s electorate — unlike the rights of other families living in the state, ...