## Facts

- Michigan voters adopted a 2004 constitutional amendment providing 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.”
- Before and after the amendment’s adoption, several Michigan public employers (including local governments and state universities) offered health-insurance benefits to employees’ same-sex domestic partners.
- The City of Kalamazoo maintained a domestic-partnership policy extending benefits to an employee’s spouse or, if unmarried, to a qualifying same-sex domestic partner.
- Kalamazoo’s eligibility criteria for domestic partners included same-sex status, adulthood, cohabitation, being unmarried and not closely related, and mutual financial dependence.
- The Michigan Attorney General issued an opinion concluding the amendment prohibited state and local governmental entities from offering benefits based on a domestic partnership defined by marriage-like attributes.
- Public employers indicated they would end domestic-partner benefits absent a judicial ruling permitting them.
- Plaintiffs (an advocacy organization and affected public employees) sought declaratory relief against the Governor and others, asserting the amendment did not bar domestic-partner benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan’s marriage amendment prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to employees’ same-sex domestic partners when eligibility depends on recognition of a domestic-partnership status.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and reversed the trial court.
- The court held the marriage amendment prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners when the benefits are conditioned on a domestic-partnership status defined by characteristics similar to marriage.
- The court reasoned that conditioning benefits on such a relationship constitutes governmental recognition of a “marriage or similar union” “for any purpose.”
- The court declined to rely on campaign assurances, polling, or other extrinsic evidence to narrow the amendment’s meaning where the text was treated as unambiguous.
- The court indicated the amendment does not necessarily bar benefits structured without recognizing a marriage-like union (e.g., benefits not tied to a relationship-status definition resembling marriage).

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional interpretation begins with the text; when the language is clear, courts apply its ordinary meaning rather than extrinsic evidence of voter intent.
- A constitutional ban on recognition of “marriage or similar union for any purpose” reaches governmental actions that confer legal consequences based on recognition of a marriage-analogous relationship status.
- Public-employer benefit programs may be unconstitutional if eligibility is conditioned on an officially defined domestic partnership that mirrors core features associated with marriage.
- Distinguishing concept: providing benefits to a third party is not necessarily prohibited; what is prohibited is granting benefits because government recognizes a relationship as a marriage or similar union.

## Conclusion

Michigan’s marriage amendment was construed to bar public employers from offering health-insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners when eligibility is conditioned on a defined domestic-partnership status that resembles marriage, because such conditioning constitutes governmental recognition of a “similar union” for a legal purpose.


Nat'l Pride at Work, Inc. v. Governor of Mich., 481 Mich. 56, 748 N.W.2d 524 (2008)