Opinion ID: 839711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: similar union

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the only thing that is prohibited by the [marriage] amendment is the recognition of a same-sex relationship as a marriage  and that the public employers here are not recognizing a domestic partnership as a marriage. Plaintiff's brief on appeal (Docket No. 133554), p. 23 (emphasis in the original). We respectfully disagree. First, the amendment prohibits the recognition of a domestic partnership as a marriage or similar union . . . . That is, it prohibits the recognition of a domestic partnership as a marriage or as a union that is similar to a marriage. Second, just because a public employer does not refer to, or otherwise characterize, a domestic partnership as a marriage or a union similar to a marriage does not mean that the employer is not recognizing a domestic partnership as a marriage or a union similar to a marriage. Cf. id. at 26 (In providing benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees, these employers have not declared the same-sex partnership to be a marriage or anything similar to marriage.) (emphasis added). [4] The pertinent question is not whether public employers are recognizing a domestic partnership as a marriage or whether they have declared a domestic partnership to be a marriage or something similar to marriage; rather, it is whether the public employers are recognizing a domestic partnership as a union similar to a marriage. A union is something formed by uniting two or more things; combination; . . . a number of persons, states, etc., joined or associated together for some common purpose. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991). Certainly, when two people join together for a common purpose and legal consequences arise from that relationship, i.e., a public entity accords legal significance to this relationship, a union may be said to be formed. When two people enter a domestic partnership, they join or associate together for a common purpose, and, under the domestic-partnership policies at issue here, legal consequences arise from that relationship in the form of health-insurance benefits. Therefore, a domestic partnership is most certainly a union. The next question is whether a domestic partnership is similar to a marriage. Plaintiffs and the dissent argue that because the public employers here do not bestow upon a domestic partnership all the legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, [5] the partnership is not similar to a marriage. Again, we respectfully disagree. Similar means having a likeness or resemblance, [especially] in a general way; having qualities in common[.] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991); see also White v. City of Ann Arbor, 406 Mich. 554, 572-574, 281 N.W.2d 283 (1979). A union does not have to possess all the same legal rights and responsibilities that result from a marriage in order to constitute a union similar to that of marriage. If the marriage amendment were construed to prohibit only the recognition of a union that possesses legal rights and responsibilities identical to those that result from a marriage, the language or similar union would be rendered meaningless, and an interpretation that renders language meaningless must be avoided. Sweatt v. Dep't of Corrections, 468 Mich. 172, 183, 661 N.W.2d 201 (2003) (opinion by Markman, J.). Further, the dissimilarities identified by plaintiffs are not dissimilarities pertaining to the nature of the marital and domestic-partnership unions themselves, but are merely dissimilarities pertaining to the legal effects that are accorded these relationships. However, given that the marriage amendment prohibits the recognition of unions similar to marriage for any purpose, the pertinent question is not whether these unions give rise to all the same legal effects; rather, it is whether these unions are being recognized as unions similar to marriage for any purpose. [6] For these reasons, we respectfully disagree with the trial court's conclusion that the criteria [used by the public employers] . . . do not recognize a union `similar to marriage' because the criteria, even when taken together, pale in comparison to the myriad of legal rights and responsibilities accorded to those with marital status. Unpublished opinion of the Ingham Circuit Court, issued September 27, 2005, 2005 WL 3048040, p. 5 (Docket No. 05-368-CZ), p. 9. Instead, we agree with the Court of Appeals that a publicly recognized domestic partnership need not mirror a marriage in every respect in order to run afoul of article 1, § 25 because the amendment plainly precludes recognition of a `similar union for any purpose.' Nat'l Pride, 274 Mich.App. at 163, 732 N.W.2d 139. [7] All the domestic-partnership policies at issue here require the partners to be of a certain sex, i.e., the same sex as the other partner. [8] Similarly, Michigan law requires married persons to be of a certain sex, i.e., a different sex from the other. MCL 551.1 (Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman.). [9] In addition, each of the domestic-partnership policies at issue in this case requires that the partners not be closely related by blood. [10] Similarly, Michigan law requires that married persons not be closely related by blood. MCL 551.3 [11] and MCL 551.4. [12] Although there are, of course, many different types of relationships in Michigan that are accorded legal significance-e.g., debtor-creditor, parent-child, landlord-tenant, attorney-client, employer-employee-marriages and domestic partnerships appear to be the only such relationships that are defined in terms of both gender and the lack of a close blood connection. [13] As discussed earlier, similar means having a likeness or resemblance, [especially] in a general way; having qualities in common[.] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991). Marriages and domestic partnerships share two obviously important, and apparently unique (at least in combination), qualities in common. [14] Because marriages and domestic partnerships share these similar qualities, we believe that it can fairly be said that they resembl[e] one another in a general way. Therefore, although marriages and domestic partnerships are by no means identical, they are similar. Because marriages and domestic partnerships are the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of both gender and lack of a close blood connection, and, thus, have these core qualities in common, we conclude that domestic partnerships are unions similar to marriage. [15]