Substantial Equivalent to marriage

As the battle rages over a marriage protection amendment in Florida I've seen a series of blog entries comparing Florida's amendment to what was passed in Michigan in 2004. This one looks at the recent Michigan Supremes ruling that banned domestic partner benefits and the lessons to be learned from it.

Similar to Michigan, the Florida amendment does not simply say, "marriage is between a man and a woman," as many state amendments did, but goes on to ban any "substantial equivalent."

In the ruling the Mich. Supremes said it doesn't matter that the amendment promoters claimed it would affect only gay marriage. Fla. supporters are making the same claim. The only thing to go on is the text of the amendment.

That "substantial equivalent" phrase means something or it wouldn't be there, said the Supremes. We can't simply say it doesn't apply to Domestic Partnerships because that would render the language meaningless. Thus, it definitely is about more than gay marriage.

The Mich. Supremes didn't look at what rights and responsibilities were attached to marriage and DPs, they looked at the requirements to enter into each kind of relationship -- and found them similar. No other relationships in Mich. are defined by the sex of the parties and prohibit the relationship based on a close blood connection. In addition, both are limited to two people, require partners to undertake mutual support, and both continue until one party takes steps to terminate it. Many of those are the same requirements for a DP in Broward County, Fla.