Michigan denies health benefits to same-sex couples

On May 8, a 5-to-2 Michigan Supreme Court decision denied the right of public sector workers in same-sex relationships the right to domestic partner medical benefits. The justices used a 2004 amendment to the Michigan constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman—an amendment that says nothing about same-sex partnerships—as the basis for their reactionary ruling.

In a bit of absurd legal doublespeak, the court explained it was denying domestic partner health benefits because these partnerships have many of the characteristics of a heterosexual marriage. The ruling spelled out how the joint responsibility for basic living expenses, including the cost of food, shelter and other common expenses of maintaining a household, are common to same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

Twenty-one couples and National Pride At Work, the LGBT constituency group of the AFL-CIO, were the plaintiffs representing unionized public-sector workers. Union contracts that include domestic partner benefits have been directly affected as cities and other public entities in Michigan have dropped domestic partner benefits as a result of the 2004 amendment.

In an irony of legal tactics, the ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, downplayed the issue of equality of same-sex relationships to skirt the anti-gay marriage amendment. Its lawyers argued that public employers did not view same-sex partners as “spouses”; thus, there was no violation of the 2004 amendment.

The tactic backfired as the court again affirmed the validity of same-sex relationships, writing, “[J]ust because a public employer does not refer to, or otherwise characterize, a domestic partnership as a marriage or a union similar to a marriage does not mean that the employer is not recognizing a domestic partnership as a marriage or a union similar to a marriage.”

The U.S. ruling class is opposed to recognizing same-sex relationships and extending the 1,000 plus benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy for two reasons.

First, it means greater profits to the bosses—or savings to governments that would rather spend the money to further the interests of the capitalist class—if they are not obligated to pay for the same benefits to LGBT workers that they provide to straight workers.

Second, the perpetuation of anti-gay ideology helps to keep working and poor people divided. If the rich can turn the attention of the working class away from the hardships of life and towards a reactionary social program of anti-gay bigotry, only the corporate owners will benefit, while all working and poor people, LGBT and straight, will suffer.

This legal setback will only be turned around as a result of struggle—one waged not in the courts but in the streets. There is great potential for a broad and dynamic struggle for domestic-partner benefits. For millions of workers, being able to get on a partner’s plan determines whether or not they will have access to health care.

The sexist and bigoted view of the family and LGBT people is an antiquated social norm. With each new generation, the diversity of human sexuality and the family is embraced by larger and larger numbers. An appeal to the working class to fight for same-sex health care benefits can tap into this progressive change in consciousness and create a movement that fights for and wins not only same-sex health benefits, but health care for all.