News & Commentary

It’s an exciting time to be the ACLU of Michigan – new website, new blog, new president and a new outlook on civil liberties in Michigan. Admittedly, it’s hard to have a new outlook on anything in this state other than the economic crisis that we’re facing, but lucky for us, guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms that this country was founded upon doesn’t cost a thing. In fact, civil libertie could save the state a lot of money.

Op-ed Appearing in the Ann Arbor News

The ACLU doesn't believe that voters intended to take health benefits away from families when they voted on Proposal 2 in 2004. And this is just what we'll argue in front of the Michigan Supreme Court this Tuesday, November 6. National Pride at Work v Granholm et al is our case asking the courts to declare that the 2004 Proposal 2 does not prohibit public employers from offering benefits to the partners and children of lesbian and gay employees. The ACLU of Michigan brought this case after Attorney General Mike Cox issued a ruling stating his belief that health benefits for same-sex couples were not allowable under Proposal 2. The Ingham County Circuit Court ruled in our favor, but the decision was reversed by the Michigan Court of Appeals in February of this year. We urge you to do two things:

This is a sad time in Michigan's legal history. On Nov. 2, a majority of voters approved an amendment to Michigan's constitution. The language, "Only the union between one man and one woman in marriage shall be recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose" seemed simple, but it isn't.

Michigan’s anti-gay organizations have mobilized to pressure Michigan’s Senators to take action on Senate Joint Resolution E (SJR E), a pending amendment to the state Constitution, by mid-February.