As recounted in this Detroit Free Press editorial:
Gay couples scored a big victory Tuesday in a judge's ruling that last fall's [Michigan] constitutional amendment barring marriage between two men or two women does not jeopardize health care benefits afforded such couples. Even though Michigan is a long way from recognizing marriage equality, it cannot outlaw equitable health coverage.
In other words, the state and local governments-as well as private-sector employers-can extend health benefits to employees' partners.
That's good; but permitting (or at least not constitutionally prohibiting!) civil unions or marriage would be much better. As often noted on this site (see here, for instance), if conservative marriage defenders really wanted to safeguard the institution, they'd realize that letting gays wed would do more to strengthen marriage than a prohibition that, by necessity, leads to providing spousal benefits to the unwed, both straight and gay.
Still, at least one of the most pernicious aspects of these
overly broad anti-gay amendments (none of which, to date, has ever
failed to pass when put to a popular vote) was dealt a major
setback.