Michigan Judge Refuses to Ban Gay Marriage Quoting Supreme Court, Promises Trial
The issue landed in the hands of U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who in June refused to toss out a lesbian couple's lawsuit challenging the state's ban on adoption by unmarried couples. Friedman, citing the June U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized legally married gay couples, concluded the plaintiffs are "entitled to their day in court and they shall have it."
federal judge said Wednesday that the fate of Michigan's ban on gay marriage will be decided in a trial Feb. 25, disappointing gay-rights activists who thought his decision would be immediate.
The women want the right to pursue their dream of having a family while the state's position is that only men and women can marry and have children.
At an afternoon hearing, Friedman was expected to decide on the constitutionality of Michigan's ban on gay marriage and determine whether or not the state is unlawfully discriminating against two nurses who want to get married and adopt each others' children.
"I'm in the middle. I have to decide this as a matter of law. I intend to do so," Friedman said. But he also said that he would not rule now.
If Friedman had lifted the ban without issuing a stay, same-sex marriage would have legal in Michigan until, and unless, a higher court overturned it. As of now the status quo remains: no gay marriage in Michigan.
Kristin Heyse with state Attorney General Bill Schuette's office said Michigan's position is not an attack on the gay community and said the plaintiffs are doing a wonderful job raising their children. Instead, the question is who gets to decide the state's law, the people or the court.
In 2004, 59% of voters approved a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as "the union of one man and one woman."
The court can't disregard previous cases where the state's authority to define marriage was upheld, Heyse said.
Lawyer Carole Stanyar, speaking for plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, said the U.S. Supreme Court has provided guidance for the court. She said the will of the people should not be disregarded, but precedent allows for scrutiny of laws that may be unconstitutional.
"These marriage bans ... are hurting the most vulnerable members of our society," Stanyar said.
The case involves DeBoer, 42, and Rowse, 48, who in January 2012 challenged the state's ban on same-sex adoption. They later decided also to take on the the state's ban on gay marriage.
"We're cautiously optimistic that a ruling will come," Dana Nessel, one of four lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said before the hearing. "When you have waited this long for some semblance of equality, you kind of want it right now. You don't want to wait any longer."
Whatever Friedman decides in February, an appeal will follow. The state has vowed a vigorous fight to uphold the 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment, arguing it has "legitimate state interests" in defining marriage.
"Michigan supports natural procreation and recognizes that children benefit from being raised by parents of each sex who can then serve as role models of the sexes both individually and together in matrimony," the state has argued in court documents.
The plaintiffs argue the ban unlawfully violates their right under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution to get married and adopt each others' children. Rowse has two preschool-aged boys; DeBoer has a 3-year-old girl. They also argue the state has no rational basis for denying them the right to get married and adopt kids.
"We don't see ourselves as poster women for anything," DeBoer said to cheers as they arrived outside the federal courthouse. "If anything, we're poster women for our children and the rights of children like ours in Michigan."
As soon as the court grants her power, Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown, a defendant in the case, will issue licenses to same-sex couples, her lawyer told the judge.
Nessel believes that the gay and lesbian community in Michigan has suffered long enough from discrimination. She believes a ruling favoring her clients could trigger long overdue positive changes for gays and lesbians the state that she contends has among the worst records for gay and lesbian rights.
"It's very critical that we have a federal court step in and say, 'No, you cannot use your laws to discriminate against what has historically been an unpopular segment of society,' " she said.
To date, 14 states have legalized gay marriage, according to ProCon.org, a nonprofit and nonpartisan group that researches controversial issues. Another 35 states, including Michigan, have gay marriage bans through either laws or constitutional amendments. Only one state, New Mexico, has no law legalizing or banning same-sex marriage.
The New Jersey Supreme Court said it will soon decide whether gays can marry there, and a Utah federal judge in December will hear arguments about that state's ban.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark same-sex marriage rulings: one directed the federal government to provide equal treatment to same-sex spouses, the other allowed gay marriages in California to resume.
In a 5-4 ruling, the nation's highest court struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to gay couples married under state law. The court found that gay couples married in states where it's legal must receive the same health, tax, and other benefits offered to their heterosexual counterparts.
However, the high court rulings haven't deterred Schuette from fighting to uphold the state's constitutional amendment.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states retain the constitutional authority to define marriage," Schuette spokeswoman Joy Yearout said. "We will continue to aggressively defend Michigan's Constitution in this case."
Gary Glenn, who leads the conservative American Family Association of Michigan, said it would be a mistake for a judge to extinguish a law on the books for nearly a decade.
"One Detroit lawyer in a black robe doesn't have the legitimate constitutional or moral authority to overturn the will of millions of Michigan voters," Glenn said.
In Ann Arbor, the Washtenaw County clerk's office said judges and clergy had planned to be available at the local courthouse if Friedman had allowed immediate same-sex marriage.
"There's obviously a lot of emotion, and a lot of people have been waiting a long time," said Ed Golembiewski, chief deputy clerk.
Bishop Jerry Brohl of Blessed John XIII Community, a church for Christians of all stripes in Wyandotte, near Detroit, said he would be eager to bless same-sex marriages, even if he doesn't know the couple.
"Under normal circumstances, I'd want to spend a bit more time with a couple," he said. "But under these circumstances, I feel I need to make an exception. You have two mature persons who are committing themselves to a relationship based on love."
Contributing: Niraj Warkioo, Detroit Free Press; The Associated Press
Source: Freedom to Marry
Comments