Posted on 04/15/2005 2:24:31 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Appeals court tosses same-sex benefits case on technicality
4/15/2005, 4:53 p.m. ET
By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The state appeals court on Friday dismissed a challenge to the Ann Arbor school district's same-sex benefits policy but avoided the bigger legal issue by tossing out the case on a technicality.
The court said 17 taxpayers, represented by a Christian law group, failed to follow the proper procedures for halting the alleged misappropriation of public dollars.
Barring an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the ruling means the broader issue will be decided by a lower court, likely in Ingham County.
The Thomas More Law Center sued in 2003, and on appeal it argued that Proposal 2 — a constitutional amendment passed by voters last November that recognizes only a union between a man and a woman as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose"_ prevents the district and other publicly funded entities from providing health insurance and retirement benefits to gay couples in future contracts.
But the appeals court sidestepped the Proposal 2 question.
It instead agreed with a Washtenaw County judge, ruling the taxpayers did not "demand" that the schools stop providing the benefits to employees' gay partners — a requirement under state law. They had sent letters to school board members asking them to stop the policy.
"Plaintiffs' letters are merely a request that the alleged misappropriation stop; they are not a demand for legal action," the judges wrote.
Seth Lloyd, an attorney for the district, said the taxpayers waited two-and-a-half years to sue after complaining to the district. He said they should not appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court because there is a pending Proposal 2 case in Ingham County filed by gay couples.
"We hope they'll just wait until that case is decided and allow the Ann Arbor schools to use the money that it cost to defend this case for the purpose for which it's designed, and that's to educate the kids of Ann Arbor," Lloyd said.
A message seeking comment was left with Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the taxpayers.
In the Ingham County case, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, a gay rights group and several gays who work for universities, cities and the state are seeking a judgment that Proposal 2 does not bar giving benefits to gay partners and their children.
They sued the state last month after Republican Attorney General Mike Cox interpreted the amendment's broad language to mean the city of Kalamazoo, by designating gay partners to receive the same health and retirement benefits as married spouses, gives domestic partnerships a marriage-like status.
He wrote in an opinion that Proposal 2 prohibits the acknowledgment of same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Cox said his opinion is binding, but the issue ultimately will be decided by the courts.
The Ann Arbor school district estimates that 10 to 15 same-sex partners of the district's 3,000 full-time and part-time employees receive benefits.
•__
The case is Rohde v. Ann Arbor Public Schools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.