by E. Ross

Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban prevents governments and universities from providing health insurance to the partners of gay and lesbian workers, the state Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday. The decision affects university, community college, school district and government employees, according to the The Associated Press. The policies currently cover at least 375 couples.

Both Alaska and Michigan passed constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman. The Michigan law also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships. This difference contributed to a Michigan ruling that is the opposite of the Alaska Supreme Court ruling on partner benefits.

The Michigan constitutional amendment approved in November 2004 says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.” The court ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren’t identical, they are similar. 

Voters “hardly could have made their intentions clearer,” Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law’s “for any purpose” language. 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which represented the gay couples, said the ruling was “flawed and unfortunate.” 

Twenty-six states have passed constitutional bans and nineteen have state laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Seventeen of those states have broader amendments that also prohibit the recognition of civil unions or same-sex partnerships.

The Michigan ruling is not the first from a state high court interpreting the scope of gay marriage bans.

In 2005, The Alaska Supreme Court ordered the state and the Municipality of Anchorage to offer plans that provide the same benefits for employees with same-sex domestic partners as for married employees. The Alaska Constitution prohibits the state from recognizing marriages between gay couples, so partners of gay employees could never receive those benefits. The workers were denied equal benefits for equal work, which violated the state’s guarantee of equal protection.

The court unanimously agreed, stating that “denying benefits to the same-sex domestic partners who are absolutely ineligible to become spouses has no demonstrated relationship to the interest of promoting marriage.” 

The ACLU of Alaska, which represented the couples, cheered the decision as an important victory for same-sex couples and their families.

In Michigan, gay and lesbian couples could lose their health benefits based on last week’s ruling. Most of the employers have rewritten or will revise the benefit plans so that same-sex partners can continue getting health care. However, the legal status of those plans is unclear.

“It is an odd notion to find that a union that shares only one of the hundreds of benefits that a marriage provides is a union similar to marriage,” wrote dissenting Justice Marilyn Kelly.