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.
In May 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the amendment bans not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also public employee domestic partnership benefits such as health insurance.[5] However, the ruling had little effect since most public employers relaxed their eligibility criteria to not run afoul of the amendment.[6] On June 28, 2013, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its law banning local governments and school districts from offering health benefits to their employees' domestic partners. He wrote: "It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose—indeed, perhaps the sole purpose—of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose". He rejected the state's arguments that "fiscal responsibility" was the law's rationale.[7][8]
On March 21, 2014, a federal judge ruled that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and did not stay the ruling,[9] although the ruling was later suspended.
When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way. For these reasons, we reverse.[10]
On January 16, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to the same-sex marriage cases arising out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral arguments were held on April 28, 2015 and a ruling was made on June 26, 2015 allowing same-sex marriage in every state.
^White, Ed (March 21, 2014). "Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage". AP News. Retrieved March 21, 2014.
^Deboer v Snyder et al, 14-1341 (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT November 6, 2014).
External links
The Money Behind the 2004 Marriage Amendments -- National Institute on Money in State Politics
January 25, 2023
2004, michigan, proposal, michigan, proposal, 2004, amendment, michigan, constitution, that, made, unconstitutional, state, recognize, perform, same, marriages, civil, unions, referendum, approved, voters, amendment, faced, multiple, legal, challenges, finally. Michigan Proposal 04 2 1 of 2004 is an amendment to the Michigan Constitution that made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same sex marriages or civil unions The referendum was approved by 59 of the voters 2 The amendment faced multiple legal challenges and was finally overturned in Obergefell v Hodges by the U S Supreme Court Proposal 2Constitutional Amendment recognition of marriage ResultsChoice Votes Yes 2 698 077 58 62 No 1 904 319 41 38 Total votes 4 602 396 100 00 Yes 70 80 60 70 50 60 No 50 60 Source Michigan Secretary of State 1 Contents 1 Contents 2 Results 3 Aftermath 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksContents EditThe text of the amendment states 3 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 Results EditProposal 04 2 4 Choice Votes Yes 2 698 077 58 63No 1 904 319 41 37Total votes 4 602 396 100 00Registered voters turnout 7 263 024 63 36Aftermath EditIn May 2008 the Michigan Supreme Court held that the amendment bans not only same sex marriage and civil unions but also public employee domestic partnership benefits such as health insurance 5 However the ruling had little effect since most public employers relaxed their eligibility criteria to not run afoul of the amendment 6 On June 28 2013 U S District Judge David M Lawson issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its law banning local governments and school districts from offering health benefits to their employees domestic partners He wrote It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose indeed perhaps the sole purpose of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same sex partners of public employees But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose He rejected the state s arguments that fiscal responsibility was the law s rationale 7 8 On March 21 2014 a federal judge ruled that Michigan s ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional and did not stay the ruling 9 although the ruling was later suspended On November 6 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the lower court in DeBoer v Snyder declaring that When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers Better in this instance we think to allow change through the customary political processes in which the people gay and straight alike become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair minded way For these reasons we reverse 10 On January 16 2015 the U S Supreme Court granted certiorari to the same sex marriage cases arising out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Oral arguments were held on April 28 2015 and a ruling was made on June 26 2015 allowing same sex marriage in every state See also EditCivil union in the United States Domestic partnership in the United States LGBT rights in Michigan Same sex marriage in Michigan Same sex marriage in the United StatesReferences Edit a b 2004 General Election Results Archived 2007 02 22 at the Wayback Machine Michigan Department of State Accessed 19 December 2006 CNN com Election 2004 Ballot Measures Accessed 30 November 2006 Michigan State Constitution Article I section 25 Michigan Legislature Accessed 19 December 2006 2004 General Election Turnout Rates United States Election Project June 4 2013 Archived from the original on July 9 2013 National Pride at Work Inc v Governor of Michigan 748 N W 2d 524 Ruling on same sex benefits weighed Mlive com 2008 05 08 Archived from the original on 2013 11 02 Retrieved 2013 11 02 White Ed June 28 2013 Mich ban on domestic partner benefits blocked Pioneer Press Retrieved February 18 2014 Lederman Marty July 1 2013 After Windsor Michigan same sex partners benefits suit advances SCOTUSblog Retrieved July 2 2013 White Ed March 21 2014 Judge strikes down Michigan s ban on gay marriage AP News Retrieved March 21 2014 Deboer v Snyder et al 14 1341 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT November 6 2014 External links EditThe Money Behind the 2004 Marriage Amendments National Institute on Money in State Politics Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title 2004 Michigan Proposal 2 amp oldid 1065147704, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
