State of Michigan Court of Appeals
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., BECKY FOR PUBLICATION ALLEN, DORTHEA AGNOSTOPOULOS, February 1, 2007 ADNAN AYOUB, MEGHAN BELLANGER, 9:00 a.m. JUDITH BLOCK, MARY M. BRISBOIS, WADE CARLSON, COURTNEY D. CHAPIN, MICHAEL CHAPMAN, MICHELLE CORWIN, LORI CURRY, JOSEPH DARBY, SCOTT DENNIS, JIM ETZKORN, JILL FULLER, SUSAN HALSEY-CERAGH, PETER HAMMER, DEBRA HARRAH, TY HIITHER, JOLINDA JACH, TERRY KORRECK, CRAIG KUKUK, GARY LINDSAY, KEVIN MCMANN, A.T. MILLER, KITTY O’NEIL, DENNIS PATRICK, TOM PATRICK, GREGG PIZZI, KATHLEEN POELKER, JEROME POST, BARBARA RAMBER, PAUL RENWICK, DAHLIA SCHWARTZ, ALEXANDRA STERN, GWEN STOKES, KEN CYBERSKI, JOANNE BEEMON, CAROL BORGESON, MICHAEL FALK, and MATT SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellees, V No. 265870 Ingham Circuit Court GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN and LC No. 05-000368-CZ CITY OF KALAMAZOO, Defendant-Appellee, and ATTORNEY GENERAL Intervening Defendant-Appellant. Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Wilder and Zahra, JJ. -1- WILDER, J. Intervening defendant Attorney General Michael Cox (AG) appeals as of right from the Ingham Circuit Court’s order granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) to plaintiff National Pride at Work, Inc., a non-profit constituency group of the AFL-CIO,1 and the public employees and their respective same-sex domestic partners. In this appeal, intervening defendant challenges the trial court’s declaratory ruling that the marriage amendment, article 1, section 25 of the Michigan constitution,2 does not preclude public employers from extending same sex-domestic partnership benefits. We reverse. I We begin by noting the relatively significant public attention this case has received. In that context, we feel constrained to observe at the outset that this case is not about the lifestyle or personal living decisions of individual citizens.
[Show full text]