NATIONAL

Michigan court ruling puts gays in a quandary
Partners of state employees barred from receiving benefits

CHRIS JOHNSON
Friday, May 16, 2008

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, he said.

“Even if the Supreme Court overruled this case, does that mean there’s another nastier ballot initiative coming down the line?” he asked.

When making the case for the amendment in 2004, proponents said the measure would only prohibit marriage and not affect benefits, so Michigan voters may not have known the consequences of what they were voting for when they approved the amendment, Falk said.

“It’s hard to say what it is the citizens of Michigan really want, but it’s also not like there’s been a huge outcry across the state opposing this sets of rulings in the courts,” he said.

Upon his arrival in Maryland, Falk said he plans to take a position at Johns Hopkins University, which is a private institution. Falk also said the gay community in Maryland seems to be heading in the opposite direction and receiving more rights instead of having them taken away.

While Falk and his partner are moving, the vast majority of university employees are standing their ground in Michigan and relying on their employers to protect their interests.

Scott Spector, a University of Michigan history professor, plans to remain in Michigan with his partner, Eric Firstenberg, who is attending graduate school at University of Detroit Mercy to become a physician assistant.

Spector believes his university is “being supportive and is trying to continue the benefits” it has offered its faculty, but he acknowledged that the Supreme Court decision “sent a signal” outside the university “that there is a more negative situation here.”

“There is some possibility that potential faculty would be less attracted to the University of Michigan because the formal same-sex benefit is not here,” he said.

Peter Sparling, a dance professor at the University of Michigan, was part of a gay faculty alliance that persuaded the school to first give benefits to same-sex couples almost 20 years ago.

He said he and his partner, John Gutoskey, a visual artist, plan to stay in Michigan, but are apprehensive about a change in benefits. Sparling said he and his partner would need to leave the state if the University of Michigan could no longer offer benefits.

“If for some reason the university was forced to discontinue this kind of benefit … then absolutely yes I would be forced to seek work elsewhere,” he said.

While university employees react to the Supreme Court decision, gay rights advocates are drawing attention to the ruling as an example of the harm caused by state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, said the court decision demonstrates how these amendments are “cruel and unfair and have no place in the laws of this country.”

“The important thing for all us is to fight them to educate the public about why denying marriage and all other family protections is wrong,” he said.

Wolfson even took issue with referring to such amendments as same-sex marriage bans, arguing that they are so pervasive in the lives of gays that they should simply be called “anti-gay” amendments.

Another group is drawing attention to the Michigan Supreme Court decision in the fight against a similar same-sex marriage ban proposed in Florida. Stephen Gaskill, spokesperson for Florida Red & Blue, an organization opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment, is playing up possible consequences of the amendment in an effort to urge Florida voters to reject the measure this November.

“This Supreme Court decision in Michigan just emphasizes and underscores exactly what the consequences are for Florida — people will lose benefits,” he said.

Gaskill said there would be a “brain drain” of educated people leaving Florida if voters were to approve the amendment.

Wolfson said gays in states where these amendments have passed should remain there to “make a much stronger human connection between their families and their fellow citizens” in an effort to get bans overturned. Telling individual stories about how these amendments are affecting families will help convince the electorate to change its mind on the issue, he said.

“I can certainly understand on an individual level people needing to move in order to protect their families, but most of us need to stand and fight, and we can begin by fighting right now in the battles that loom this year,” he said.

national | local | world | arts | classifieds | real estate | about us

© 2008 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy