February 2, 2007

            LANSING - Attorney General Mike Cox today announced that the Court of Appeals has adopted his interpretation of marriage and the Marriage Protection Amendment in reversing the lower courts decision in National Pride at Work et al v Governor of Michigan et al.  Cox intervened in this case to defend the will of the people.  In 2004, the citizens of Michigan overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act.

            In accepting the Attorney General's arguments, the Court made clear that the City of Kalamazoo, the State of Michigan, and public universities cannot provide employment benefits to same-sex domestic partnerships because their method of recognizing the "same-sex union through the vehicle of a domestic partnership agreement" gives "same-sex domestic couples similar status to that of married couples." 

            "I am committed to protecting the will of the people and I will vigorously defend the Michigan Constitution," said Cox.  "I am pleased with the Court's decision to uphold the will of the people."

            As argued by the Attorney General, the Amendment does not "preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship."  The Court explained, however, that recognizing same-sex unions - which were defined by contract in terms similar to marriage - for the purpose of extending employment benefits violates the Amendment's plain language:

"By recognizing a domestic partnership agreement for the purpose of providing benefits, the state plan and the plans of the University of Michigan, Michigan  State University and the City of Kalamazoo, run directly afoul of the plain language of the amendment."

            According to Cox, "The Amendment approved by the people could not be more clear:  'To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, 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[1]." The citizens of Michigan have spoken and I will defend their voice."

            In reaching its decision, the Court reaffirmed the unique nature of marriage and confirmed that the citizens of the State could legitimately protect and strengthen traditional marriage.  The Court stated that "Michigan's public universities are bound by the public policy mandate of the people as reflected in Article 1, section 25."  The Court also rejected the arguments of the City of Ann Arbor that it has statutory authority to provide same-sex domestic partnership benefits.  The Court gave its decision "immediate effect." 

--30--