Opinion ID: 839711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment

Text: Beginning in 1993 with the Hawaii Supreme Court case of Baehr v. Lewin , [14] a number of state courts and state legislatures joined in a national discussion on the constitutionality of barring same-sex marriages. In Baehr, the court held that Hawaii's statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman was presumptively unconstitutional under the Hawaii Constitution. It held that the state had the burden of showing a compelling state interest in limiting marriage to male/female unions. [15] Following Baehr, the Vermont Supreme Court issued a decision in 1999 ordering the state legislature to create a legal form that would afford same-sex couples a status similar to that of married couples. [16] Then, in 2003, in the famous case of Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health , [17] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that barring two people of the same sex from marrying violated the equal protection guarantees of the Massachusetts Constitution. [18] That same year, the California Legislature granted registered domestic partners the same rights, protections, and benefits . . . as are granted to and imposed upon spouses. [19] It was against this background that the Michigan Christian Citizens Alliance commenced an initiative to amend the Michigan Constitution to bar same-sex marriage. The alliance formed the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage committee (CPM) in response to the debate taking place across the country over the definition of marriage. [20] The committee's stated goal was to place the issue of same-sex marriage on the ballot so that Michigan voters would have the ultimate say in the matter. [21] During CPM's campaign, concerns arose regarding exactly what the amendment would prohibit. CPM attempted to address these concerns at an August 2004 public certification hearing before the Board of State Canvassers. [22] Specifically, CPM addressed whether the amendment, which it had petitioned to place on the ballot, would bar public employers from providing benefits to their employees' same-sex domestic partners. CPM's representative, attorney Eric E. Doster, assured the board that it would not. Mr. Doster stated: [T]here would certainly be nothing to preclude [a] public employer from extending [health-care] benefits, if they so chose, as a matter of contract between employer and employee, to say domestic dependent benefits . . . [to any] person, and it could be your cat. So they certainly could extend it as a matter of contract.    [A]n employer, as a matter of contract between employer and employee, can offer benefits to whomever the employer wants to. And if it wants to be my spouse, if it wants to be my domestic partnerhowever that's defined under the terms of your contract or my cat, the employer can do that. . . . [ [23] ] Mr. Doster reiterated this point several times throughout the proceedings. I'd hate to be repetitive, but again, that's a matter of contract between an employer and employee. And if the employer wanted to do that, offer those benefits, I don't see how this language affects that. If the language just said marriage or spouse, then I would agree with you. But there's nothing in this language that I would interpret that would say that that somehow would go beyond that.[ [24] ] In its campaign to win over voters, CPM made a number of additional public statements that were consistent with Mr. Doster's testimony before the Board of State Canvassers. For example, Marlene Elwell, the campaign director for CPM, was quoted in USA Today as stating that [t]his has nothing to do with taking benefits away. This is about marriage between a man and a woman. [25] Similarly, CPM communications director Kristina Hemphill was quoted as stating that [t]his Amendment has nothing to do with benefits. . . . It's just a diversion from the real issue. [26] CPM also made clear on its webpage that it was not against anyone, [CPM is] for defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Period. [27] Instead, CPM contended that its reason for proposing the amendment was its belief that [n]o one has the right to redefine marriage, to change it for everyone else. Proposal 2 will keep things as they are and as they've been. And by amending Michigan's constitution, we can settle this question once and for all. [28] CPM even distributed a brochure that asserted that the amendment would not affect any employer health-benefit plan already in place. The brochure stated: Proposal 2 is Only about Marriage Marriage is a union between a husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their life. 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.[ [29] ] It can be assumed that the clarifications offered by CPM, the organization that successfully petitioned to place the proposal on the ballot, carried considerable weight with the public. Its statements certainly encouraged voters who did not favor a wide-ranging ban to vote for what they were promised was a very specific ban on same-sex marriage. And a poll conducted shortly before the election indicates that CPM's public position was in line with public opinion. The poll results indicated that, whereas the public was in favor of banning same-sex marriage, it was not opposed to employer programs granting benefits to same-sex domestic partners. In an August 2004 poll of 705 likely voters, [30] 50 percent of respondents favored the amendment while only 41 percent planned to vote against it. But 70 percent specifically disapproved of making domestic partnerships and civil unions illegal. [31] Sixty-five percent disapproved of barring cities and counties from providing domestic-partner benefits. [32] And 63 percent disapproved of prohibiting state universities from offering domestic-partner benefits. [33] Accordingly, the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment indicate that the lead proponents of the amendment worked hard to convince voters to adopt it. [34] CPM told voters that the marriage amendment would bar same-sex marriage but would not prohibit public employers from providing the benefits at issue. It is reasonable to conclude that these statements led the ratifiers to understand that the amendment's purpose was limited to preserving the traditional definition of marriage. [35] And it seems that a majority of likely voters favored an amendment that would bar same-sex marriage but would go no further. Therefore, this Court's majority errs by holding that the amendment not only bars same-sex marriage but also prohibits the benefits at issue. The error of the majority decision is confirmed by examining the amendment's language.