Opinion ID: 839711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: benefits of marriage

Text: The marriage amendment begins with a statement of its purpose that is effectively a preamble: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children. . . . Plaintiffs argue that the marriage amendment does not prohibit public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners because health-insurance benefits do not constitute a benefit of marriage. [18] However, the marriage amendment contains more than just a statement of purpose. In full, it states: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose. The latterthe operativepart of this provision sets forth how the ratifiers intended to go about achieving the purposes set forth in the first part, secur[ing] and preserv[ing] the benefits of marriage. . . . This operative part specifies that public employers must not recognize domestic partnerships for any purpose. That is, the first part of the amendment states its purpose, and the second part states the means by which this purpose is to be achieved. Doubtless, there are those who would disagree about the efficacy of achieving the former purpose by the latter means. However, it is not for this Court to decide whether there are superior means for secur[ing] and preserv[ing] the benefits of marriage, or indeed whether the means chosen in the amendment are ineffectual or even counterproductive. The people of this state have already spoken on this issue by adopting this amendment. [19] They have decided to secure and preserve the benefits of marriage by ensuring that unions similar to marriage are not recognized in the same way as a marriage for any purpose. [20]