Michigan Supreme Court Declares That "Sex" Implies More Than Gender
Shutterstock
We ran the numbers: There are 1,982 news articles covering this topic. 40% (781) are left-leaning, 39% (761) are centrist, and 22% (440) are right-leaning.
The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed on Thursday that an anti-bias law from 1976 protects LGBTQ individuals, stating that “sex” implies more than gender. While left-leaning articles highlight the reasoning for the decision, right-leaning articles highlight the history of the law and reactions to the decision.
A left-leaning article from The Washington Post focuses on how Justice Elizabeth Clement, writing for the majority, declared that while the Michigan Congress likely intended to help women when it prevented discrimination based on sex, “this motivation does not curtail other applications of the plain statutory language.” Judge Clement also pointed out that the law has been applied in pregnancy discrimination and same-sex sexual harassment cases.
The Hill published a centrist reporting on how Justice Clement, a Republican, wrote that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily constitutes discrimination because of sex.” The article notes that while some praised the decision, others critiqued the court for overextending its duty by reinterpreting the original law.
A right-leaning article from Fox News focuses on how the law affirmed by the Justices was Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, a 1976 law that protects against discrimination based on “religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status or marital status.” The article also notes how Attorney General Dana Nessel, who argued the case for the state, called the decision a “day for justice.”