DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law

Last updated on: July 6, 2013 at 7:08 pm by CNA Daily News

DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law 2013-07-06T19:08:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Detroit, Mich., Jul 6, 2013 / 01:08 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A federal judge has blocked a Michigan law barring domestic partner benefits for public school and local government employees, citing the Supreme Court ruling that struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act.

U.S. District Judge David Lawson’s June 28 ruling said it can “never be a legitimate purpose” to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. He said the plaintiffs who lost benefits or had to pay for more expensive private health insurance have a “plausible claim” that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

The 2011 law ended same-sex partner benefits for a few school districts, the counties of Ingham and Washtenaw and the cities of Ann Arbor, East Lansing and Kalamazoo, the Associated Press said.

Defenders of the law said it was passed in the spirit of a 2004 constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That amendment won 58 percent of the vote.

Michigan Attorney General Rick Snyder said the law was intended to ensure “fiscal responsibility and stewardship.” He said domestic partner policies can be written “without real parameters” and the law helped address “the spiraling costs of health care for the benefit of our state’s taxpayers and all Michiganders.”

CNA contacted the Michigan Catholic Conference for comment but did not receive a response by press time.

Judge Lawson cited the Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Windsor, which struck down provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman.

The 5-4 court decision contended that the law violated equal protection guarantees because it aimed to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

Justice Anthony Scalia in his dissent said that the law “did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence – indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.”

Another federal judge in Michigan is also considering challenges to the state amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Previous Post

July 6, 2013

Light of faith will illuminate the world, encyclical teaches

Next Post

July 6, 2013 Christian life is not a 'collage' of activities, Pope says

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who built an ark to survive the flood?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Moses Jacob Abraham Noah