Gov. Rick Snyder.JPG

Gov. Rick Snyder is asking a federal judge to uphold a ban on domestic partner benefits enacted in 2011 and challenged by five same-sex couples.

(The Associated Press)

LANSING -- A motion filed Friday by attorneys for Gov. Rick Snyder asks a federal judge to continue Michigan's ban on domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples who work for state and local governments.

The motion asks Judge David Lawson to rule in favor of the state in a lawsuit filed by five same-sex couples. The motion argues that the 2011 law banning the benefits "eliminates local government programs that are irrational and unfair" and promotes "financially sound" local agencies.

In June 2013, Lawson issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing the law, Public Act 297, saying the plaintiffs in the case had a good chance of proving at trial that the law violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution.

"The plaintiffs fortify their position with statements from the sponsors of the legislation

suggesting that Public Act 297 targets same-sex partners and was motivated by animus," Lawson wrote in his order granting the injunction, which did not require public employers to offer the benefits if they were not previously.

Two of the couples in the case are Ann Arbor Public Schools employees. The district announced after that ruling it hoped to continue offering the benefits long-term.

The summary judgment motion, filed by Attorney General Bill Schuette's office on behalf of Snyder, reiterates the fiscal responsibility argument Lawson seemed to reject when granting the injunction.

"Public Act 297 is a logical and cohesive part of the effort to reduce costs and to address the fiscal insecurity of local governments that has increased exponentially over the past five years," the state's attorneys wrote in the motion. "It is not singular and does not target same-sex couples."

Lawson's order appeared to conclude the fiscal responsibility argument was a non-starter as a defense against the equal protection claim.

"The only policy issue that the defendant has identified is the desire to save money. But a desire to save money cannot possibly be sufficiently important to require the court to abstain from deciding the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs. If it were, states could effectively insulate themselves from constitutional review by the federal courts of virtually any law by citing budgetary concerns," Lawson wrote.

The state's motion also cites a Michigan Court of Appeals case that called "absurd" and "ridiculous" a Michigan Civil Service Commission policy that would allow for state employees to share benefits with one other unrelated adult living in the same house.

"Eliminating policies that disfavor familial relationships and are 'absurd', 'unfair,' even 'ridiculous' is rational and related to legitimate state interests in promoting fair and reasonable local government policies," the state argued.

The case is one of two major suits over the rights of same-sex couples in Michigan, with a trial date set for next week in the case of a Detroit-area couple suing the state over adoption rights. Jayne Rouse and April DeBoer are challenging Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage and limits on second-parent adoption rights, saying the laws violate the equal protection clause of the federal constitution.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a key portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional last year, 18 federal court decisions across the country have struck down laws limiting the rights of same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages recognized by states.

Last week, a federal judge in Virginia struck down that state's ban on same-sex marriage, calling it unconstitutional, and a Kentucky federal court ruled that state must recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Brian Smith is the statewide education and courts reporter for MLive. Email him at bsmith11@mlive.com or follow him on Twitter or Facebook.