Opinion ID: 839711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the language of the marriage amendment

Text: The marriage amendment provides: 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.[ [36] ] It has two parts. The first lists the amendment's purpose: [t]o secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children. . . . The second discusses how that purpose is to be accomplished. Both are relevant in determining whether public employers are prohibited from providing the benefits at issue in this case. The marriage amendment undertakes to accomplish its purpose of protecting the benefits of marriage by providing that 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. Through this language, the amendment prohibits the recognition of same-sex [1] marriage or [2] similar union[s]. It is clear that the employee-benefit programs at issue do not recognize same-sex marriage. Therefore, if the programs violate the amendment, it must be by recognizing a union similar to marriage. For a union to be similar to marriage, it must share the same basic characteristics or qualities of a marriage. [37] Thus, in deciding whether the public employers violate the amendment by providing the benefits at issue, we must first consider what a marriage entails. Marriage has been called the most important relation in life. . . . [38] It is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. [39] [B]ut [marriage] is not a pure private contract. It is affected with a public interest and by a public policy. [40] Therefore, the state retains control to define and regulate the marriage union. It does so by defining who is qualified to marry, [41] what must be done for a marriage to take place, [42] and the methods for the solemnification and dissolution of marriage. [43] And the state confers many rights, benefits, and responsibilities solely as the result of a marriage. As the United States Supreme Court has said, [t]he relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. [44] It would take pages to list each of the state statutes that name legal rights and responsibilities that stem from a marriage. Examples of a few are: Each spouse has an equal right to property acquired during the marriage. [45] Each spouse has the right to pension and retirement benefits accrued during the marriage. [46] Each spouse has the right to invoke spousal immunity to prevent the other spouse's testimony. [47] And each has the right to damages for the wrongful death of his or her spouse. [48] In addition, there are more than 1,000 federal laws conferring even more benefits and privileges on married couples. [49] Accordingly, it is obvious that there are two separate elements to marriage: There is the private bond between two people, which the state recognizes by solemnifying the marriage. And there are the benefits, rights, and responsibilities that the state confers on individuals solely by virtue of their status of being married. Both elements are necessary and important components of marriage. Hence, for a union to be similar to marriage, it must mirror more than the manner in which the private bond is recognized. It must also carry with it comparable benefits, rights, and responsibilities. [50] The employer benefit programs at issue do not grant same-sex couples the rights, responsibilities, or benefits of marriage. The most that can be said is that the programs provide health-insurance coverage to same-sex partners. But health coverage is not a benefit of marriage. Although many benefits are conferred on the basis of the status of being married, health benefits are not among them. Notably absent is any state or federal law granting health benefits to married couples. Instead, the health coverage at issue is a benefit of employment. And the fact that the coverage is conferred on the employee's significant other does not transform it into a benefit of marriage; the coverage is also conferred on other dependents, such as children. But even if health coverage were a benefit of marriage, it is the only benefit afforded to the same-sex couples in this case. The same-sex couples are not granted any of the other rights, responsibilities, or benefits of marriage. It is an odd notion to find that a union that shares only one of the hundreds of benefits that a marriage provides is a union similar to marriage. It follows that the amendment is not violated because the employee-benefit programs do not constitute recognition of same-sex marriage or [a] similar union. [51] Determining that the amendment does not prohibit public employers from providing health benefits to same-sex domestic partners is consistent with the purpose explicitly expressed in the amendment. The amendment's stated purpose is [t]o secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children[.] As discussed earlier, the state is not required to provide health benefits to spouses. Therefore, it makes no sense to find that health benefits are benefits of marriage just because some public employers voluntarily provide those benefits to spouses. Instead, the health benefits at issue are benefits of employment. The amendment's stated purpose does not protect or restrict employment benefits. Therefore, barring public employers from providing the benefits at issue does nothing to further the purpose of the amendment. This is another fact that weighs in favor of my interpretation. The Attorney General makes much of the fact that the amendment uses the phrase for any purpose. The Attorney General contends that, as long as one benefit is provided to same-sex couples in the same way that it is provided to married couples, the amendment is violated. The majority accepts this argument. The majority's interpretation of the amendment is problematic because it essentially reads the word similar out of the amendment. It construes the amendment to read: the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or union for any purpose. The amendment does not prohibit the state from recognizing the validity of same-sex unions for any purpose. It prohibits the state from recognizing a same-sex marriage or a same-sex union that is similar to a marriage for any purpose. Accordingly, unless the state recognizes a same-sex marriage or a same-sex union that is similar to a marriage, the for any purpose language has no application. The majority fails to recognize this point.