Michigan DP Ruling May Impact Wisconsin Supreme Court Primary
Lansing, Madison - Michigan's constitutional ban on gay marriage also blocks public universities and state and local governments from providing health insurance benefits to the partners of gay workers, the state Court of Appeals ruled February 2.  That startling ruling now is expected to make ripples in an upcoming Supreme Court race in the state next door - Wisconsin.
  The Michigan three judge panel cited the language of a 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment making the union between a man and woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.” Language in Wisconsin’s recently-passed constitutional ban closely mirrors Michigan’s.
  “The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan,” Judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and Brian Zahra wrote in their unanimous opinion.
  Twenty-one gay couples plan to appeal the ruling. If they aren't successful, they will sue in federal court, according to attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
  "It's hugely disappointing," Gary Lindsay a member of one of the gay couples told the Associated Press. Lindsay is an office assistant at Michigan State University whose partner of 17 years had been getting health coverage along with family medical and bereavement leave prior to the ruling.
  Besides Lindsay, 15 of the plaintiffs work for employers who offer same-sex benefits including the city of Kalamazoo, various universities and a county health department covering the Lansing area. Another five plaintiffs are employed by the state, which in 2004 agreed to provide same-sex benefits but delayed them until courts ruled on their legality.
  The February 2 ruling reverses a 2005 decision by an Ingham County judge who allowed public employers to provide the benefits. Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk earlier had said criteria established by employers to qualify for same-sex benefits weren't akin to marriage because married people get many more rights than domestic partners.
  Michigan’s Republican Attorney General Mike Cox, whose legal opinion barring same-sex benefits in future contracts prompted the ACLU lawsuit, said the constitutional amendment is unambiguous. “The people set the direction," Cox told AP reporter David Eggert. “In Michigan, government cannot use anything that looks like a marriage as a basis for giving out benefits if it isn't actually a marriage.”
  In Wisconsin five lesbian couples are currently suing to obtain domestic partner benefits from their State of Wisconsin employers. The impact of Wisconsin’s new constitutional amendment on that case has yet to be determined.
  The Michigan ruling also may bring further scrutiny to the Wisconsin Supreme Court primary race to be held  statewide on February 20. The selection of the candidates in the upcoming Supreme Court Primary to replace retiring Judge Jon Wilcox could impact whether the Badger follows Michigan's ruling.  Crooks had been considered a conservative vote.
  Self-identified “conservative” candidate Annette Ziegler in a January 11 letter to supporters claimed the election of fellow candidate Linda Clifford to the high court “would turn Wisconsin into a lawsuit haven for greedy lawyers and liberal special interests.”
  Ziegler is currently a Washington County Circuit Judge and Clifford is a Madison civil attorney. Criminal defense attorney Joseph Sommers of Oregon is the third candidate in the run-off election to determine the final to candidates in the April Supreme Court election. Whoever wins the latter contest will be elected for a 10-year term on the court, replacing retiring judge Jon Wilcox, who is considered a conservative.
  The three candidates for high court highlighted very different priorities during a January 31 forum at the Madison Club. Each appeared separately for 25 minutes, answering questions posed by moderator J.R. Ross, editor of WisPolitics.com, the political website that sponsored the forum.
  At the forum Clifford rebuffed Ziegler’s charges that she would be a "liberal activist" judge and said she hoped money from special interest groups would stay out of the non-partisan race. Clifford also said she was "disappointed" by the letter, which she labeled "an adolescent diatribe" and "laughable."
  However, the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, the group behind the Wisconsin gay marriage and civil union ban, has already released an “educational election fact sheet” that highlights Ziegler’s self-espoused conservative credentials and indirectly hints of both Clifford’s and Sommers’ possibly liberal bias. Fair Wisconsin also mentioned the Supreme Court race as an opportunity of interest is the announcement of its “100 Day Plan” late last month
   Sommers claimed that judges and prosecutors in Wisconsin often operate "above the law" and that the real struggle isn't between conservatives and liberals but between powerful special interests and average people.