As a presidential election year, the 2004 ballots were stacked with representatives, board members, judges, and various referendums and proposals to be voted on. One of these proposals, the Michigan Marriage Amendment (Proposal 2), was a proposal that appeared in several forms across the country that year. Proposal 2, which passed with 58% of the vote, amended the Michigan state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This made marriage between two people of the same sex illegal in the state of Michigan.
During the campaign, advocates for Proposal 2 clearly stated that this amendment would only apply to marriage. They maintained that the proposal was not going to effect civil unions or domestic partner benefits. However, the wording of the amendment was troublesome to those in opposition of Proposal 2: “…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.” Those final six words — “or similar union for any purpose” — could contradict the supporters’ statements that Proposal 2 would only apply to marriage. “We were concerned… What did these six extra words mean? What else might this amendment be able to prohibit? What about civil unions? What about domestic partner benefits?” said Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who works on the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) project. Kaplan, along with human rights attorney Deb LaBelle, spoke at an event held at the University of Michigan Law School on Monday, February 18th.
•