Confusion about same-sex bill in legislature

---

Tweet

After the Michigan Senate tried to remove part of a bill that would strip benefits for same-sex and other non-married couples employed at public universities, the House passed the amended version on Thursday, insisting the language still pulled benefits from those groups.

While it previously was thought employees at MSU would not be affected, the move highlights confusion among Michigan lawmakers about the bill’s intent, creating an uncertain future for some employees here.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed a series of bills aimed to strip employee benefits from all same-sex and other non-married couples in an attempt to save state money.

But Senate Republicans took out a portion of the language that specifically named public university employees as affected, on the grounds it was unconstitutional at the state level.

The constitution includes an autonomy clause, which states public universities are largely unbound by control from the state government.

Although the specific reference to public university employees was taken out, House Republicans — who pushed the bill through in a party-lined vote — said they still see university employees as affected by the bill.

“Our intention is to govern as many public employees as possible allowed under the constitution,” said Ari Adler, press secretary for Speaker of the House Jase Bolger. “It sounds like there’s a difference of interpretation.”

While the bill has yet to be reviewed by Gov. Rick Snyder, his office indicated Thursday night he intends to sign the bill, so far siding with the Senate interpretation that exempts university employees.

“While Gov. Snyder has been focused on efforts that will most help turn around Michigan’s economy, and this hadn’t been on his agenda, his intent will be to sign the bill pending a final review — like every piece of legislation that comes to his desk — that ensures Constitutionality and university autonomy,” Snyder spokesperson Sara Wurfel said in an email. “Our work and understanding on the bill is that public university employees are not included.”

State Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, who voted against the bill, said the way the bill is worded is not allowed under the Michigan constitution.

“If it’s so important to do this, why would you carve anything out?” Meadows said. “I believe it is unconstitutional.”

Some have expressed opposition to the bill, saying it unfairly aims the rights of gay employees.

East Lansing city council members unanimously passed a resolution at their Oct. 18 meeting opposing the bills, as they would make it illegal for the city to offer employee benefits to same-sex and other non-married couples.

---