Posted on Thu, May. 08, 2008

A Michigan Supreme Court ruling -- that the state's law banning gay marriage also prohibits same-sex benefits offered to government employees -- is energizing opponents of a similar amendment on Florida's November ballot.

Though the wording of Michigan's same-sex marriage ban is not identical to the proposed Amendment 2 facing Florida voters in November, opponents say it will pave the way for the same ban on domestic-partnership benefits.

''We have been clear and consistent that a court could rule this amendment could take away existing rights and benefits,'' said Derek Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red and Blue, the organization running the SayNo2 Campaign. ``The other side has denied that, and today the Michigan Supreme Court said a similar amendment in Michigan does in fact take away existing benefits and protections from people.''

LAW PASSED IN 2004

The Michigan Supreme Court, upholding a ruling from a lower court, said in a 5-2 decision that the state's 2004 ban on gay marriage also bars local and state governments and public universities from offering health-insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

That state's amendment, passed in 2004, 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.''

The language of Florida's Amendment 2 defines marriage as ``the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.''

Local ordinances, in places like Broward County, Miami Beach, Key West and West Palm Beach, allow both homosexual and heterosexual couples to receive certain advantages typically given to spouses, including health insurance and hospital-visitation rights.

AMENDMENT DEFENSE

But backers of the Florida amendment argue that it won't have any effect on domestic-partner benefits.

''There's no question in my mind that Michigan has very broad language that would preclude domestic partnerships; you can see how overreaching and board the language is,'' said John Stemberger, the state chairman of Yes2Marriage.org. ``We crafted the language here specifically to protect, not exclude, domestic partnerships.''

Miami Herald staff writer Marc Caputo contributed to this report.