The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled against giving domestic partnership benefits for homosexual couples working in state university and government agencies.
In a 5-2 ruling this past week, state Supreme Court justices overruled a decision by a lower appeals court to give same-sex couples health benefits, citing the passage of the state's 2004 Marriage Protection Amendment as the basis of its decision.
"We conclude that the marriage amendment which states 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,' prohibits public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners," the court wrote in its ruling.
In 2004, a majority of voters in Michigan and over a dozen other states were prompted to pass a marriage amendment after the State Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled in favor of gay "marriage."
While the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan decried the latest ruling as "flawed and unfortunate," pro-family groups were ecstatic.
"The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees," explained Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, according to Catholic News Agency.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said that the ruling in Michigan was a victory for the sanctity of marriage everywhere.
"This ruling not only affirms the lower court ruling, but affirms the institution of marriage. In effect, it strengthens the institution and will preserve it for generations to come," he told LifeSiteNews.com.
Since 2004, when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court made its ruling to recognize gay "marriage," 26 states have passed a constitutional ban on the practice, while over a dozen others have passed laws limiting or outlawing it.