In the various flurry of gay marriage/partnership laws that are fluttering about this election season, there tend to be three categories:
- Proposals to allow gay marriage or some sort of civil union/domestic partnership.
- Proposals to ban gay marriage per se.
- Proposals to ban gay marriage and civil unions/domestic partnerships.
The first group is pretty straightforward. The third group usually doesn’t do well because while I think most Americans are still uneasy about gay marriage, they recognize the fairness and even the benefits of rewarding and recognizing stable relationships between gay couples.
The second group, thus, tend to be a lot more attractive. “We’re just protecting marriage,” the proponents say. “This has nothing do to with any other sort of domestic benefits or civil partnerships. We just feel that marriage, as a sacred institution, needs to be kept between a man and a woman.” This argument resonates with a lot of people still coming to social and emotional grips with the huge change in recognition of civil rights for gays over the last three to four
decades. The proponents of such measures are counting on that when they make their promises.
A conservative group sued Wednesday to stop Michigan State University from offering health insurance to the partners of gay workers and said the school is violating a 2004 amendment to the state constitution.
The American Family Association of Michigan filed the lawsuit in Ingham County Circuit Court and hopes to get a ruling setting a precedent that would block domestic-partner benefits at other state universities.
The purpose of the suit is to ensure that courts rule on the constitutionality of domestic-partner benefits at public universities, said Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, which is representing the association. By providing same-sex benefits, MSU is “recognizing same-sex marriage in substance, if not by label,” Gillen said.
As Les notes, he and many others warned that Michigan’s marriage protection amendment was a camel’s nose under the tent for further discrimination. But, as elsewhere, its proponents trumpeted loudly that it was only meant to ban gay marriage, not other civilly recognized relationships. From one of their fliers during the amendment campaign:
Proposal 2 is Only about marriage. Marriage is a union between husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their lives. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is-for families today and future generations.
Except, of course, some folks are now using it as the basis for arguing precisely against “benefits” and “how people choose to live their lives.” And one of those folks, Patrick Gillen, was one of the folks who wrote Proposal 2. His position has changed a bit:
Patrick T. Gillen, the Law Center’s attorney handling the case said that MSU’s policy is a transparent effort to circumvent the Marriage Amendment and state law. According to Gillen, “The constitution and laws of Michigan are designed to protect marriage and refuse recognition to same-sex unions, including same-sex domestic partnerships. Common sense and history demonstrate the enduring value of the traditional family, and its vital role in promoting the good of spouses and children, as well as the common good
of society. MSU is not free to disregard state law to promote its own definition of marriage and use state funds to promote its experiment with the family.”
Even leaving the hypocrisy aside, it’s another demonstration of how law can be used and interpreted in ways far different than what people think it will be when passed. How many times have you heard a politician say, “Don’t worry — our intent on this is clear, and this law will only ever be used for Good Things, not the Bad Things you’re so worried about.”
One politician who knew how the law really works, and how it can be turned to one’s benefit, Lyndon Johnson, once said:
You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
Or interpreted.
So as the November elections are coming closer, caveat elector. There are lots of ballot propositions and amendments out there, not just regarding “marriage protection” and the like, but about all sorts of things. And opponents of those items will point out loopholes, exceptions, interpretations, slippery slopes and the like. And the proponents will pat you on the head and say, “Don’t worry — regardless of what it says in black and white, we promise only to ever use this the way we
say it will be use right now, during the campaign.”
Don’t believe them. Even if they’re telling the truth, someone else is going to be looking at those loopholes, exceptions, interpretations, and slippery slopes, and licking their chops …