Following a Michigan Supreme Court ruling Wednesday, The University of Michigan became the second school in the Big Ten to block domestic partner benefits from its employees.
The court ruled that when Michigan passed a gay marriage ban in 2004, it also created restrictions against providing health insurance for gay university and other state-employed workers.
Michigan's amendment states only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized by the state, and any relationship of similar legal status would not be eligible for partner benefits.
Although no specific reference to domestic partner benefits was written into the amendment, the court ruled that a gay marriage ban also applies to relationships of legal standing close to that of marriage.
Wisconsin passed a similar gay marriage ban in 2006 but with slightly different wording. According to Glenn Carlson, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, it is the difference in wording that will make a large difference when the Wisconsin Supreme Court hears domestic partner benefits cases.
It may seem like splitting hairs but Michigan's amendment refers to 'similar' while [Wiscosin's] amendment refers to 'substantially similar.'""
Carlson said cases that will be heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court would hinge on wording and how the court is required by law to review the amendment. He said he thinks the Michigan ruling will make people in Wisconsin realize the gay marriage ban will have larger implications than originally thought.
Julain Appling, CEO of Wisconsin Family Council, echoed Carlson's emphasis on wording but said she does not think the decision in Michigan will necessarily affect any Wisconsin Supreme Court decision.
""I don't think that you can jump from Michigan to Wisconsin on this in one fell swoop and say that this is going to set a precedent for Wisconsin. I think our language is pretty clear.
