Michigan Judge Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage
In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman today struck down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony, just like their heterosexual counterparts.
■ Related: Q&A on what today’s ruling means
And unlike other federal judges who have decided similar cases across the country, Friedman did not stay his ruling, prompting Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette to file an emergency stay request to prevent gay couples from marrying right away. That includes the two plaintiffs in the case: Hazel Park nurses April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who fought for the right to marry and adopt each other’s special needs children.
"It's just amazing," said DeBoer, who wiped tears and hugged her parnter after learning of Friedman’s ruling. “This is what we’ve wanted for our family and families like ours…we are just so happy ... We got our day in court and we won."
Rowse was overwhelmed.
“We’re going to actually be a legalized family, a recognized family by everybody,” she said.
In his 31-page ruling, Friedman heavily criticized the state’s position that the will of the voters should have been upheld, noting that just because voters approve something doesn’t make it right, especially when it violates the Constitution.
“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to ‘the will of the people,’ state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people.
“No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples,” Friedman wrote.
“It is the court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up to ‘understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.’
“Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.”
Schuette, meanwhile, vowed to continue to fight to uphold the Michigan Marriage Amendment Act, which 2.7 million voters approved in 2004 when they decided that marriage can only be defined as a union between a man and a woman.
“In 2004 the citizens of Michigan recognized that diversity in parenting is best for kids and families because moms and dads are not interchangeable. Michigan voters enshrined that decision in our State constitution, and their will should stand and be respected,” Schuette said following today’s ruling.
Schutte said he expects the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will grant his request for a stay, noting the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in Utah’s gay-marriage case and granted that state’s request for a stay.
“Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Utah case, I fully expect our request for stay to be granted,” said Schuette.
The state has long argued that the will of the voters should not be drowned out by a single judge. The state also argues that it has a “legitimate” interest in preserving the traditional family structure because — it claims — children thrive best when raised by married moms and dads.
Friedman, though, sided with the plaintiffs.
Today’s ruling, which came just as courts were closing, at first dashed hopes for the handful of gays who waited hours to be married.
"We've been waiting years and years -- I thought the judge would've thrown us a bone," said Laura Quinn, 46, of Royal Oak. Friday was the 18th anniversary of her relationship with her partner, who stayed home while Quinn waited four hours hoping to obtain a marriage license for the couple, she said. When the courthouse closed, she trudged off, vowing to return Monday to try again.
And minutes after she'd driven off, the judge's ruling came down, making it likely that Quinn and many other gays will be lining up Monday morning outside the office of Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown.
DeBoer and Rowse, are raising three special needs children together and want to get married. The also want to adopt each others’ children, but can’t because Michigan doesn’t allow same-sex couple adoptions. Rowse has two preschool-age boys; DeBoer has a 3-year-old daughter.
The two women filed their lawsuit in January 2012, initially raising only the adoption issue but then challenging the gay marriage prohibition as well.
Unlike most federal judges who have taken up the gay-marriage issue, Friedman opted last fall to hold a trial and give both sides the chance to present their arguments and scientific evidence – the bulk of which focused on same-sex parenting studies and child outcomes of children raised in such family structures.
The state’s experts said that their studies show that children of same-sex couples have poorer outcomes than kids raised by married moms and dads.
Friedman didn’t find the state’s experts credible, stating in his ruling that the testimony of one state witness was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” He said the states four witnesses “clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majroity of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields.”
Friedman, however, said he did find the plaintiffs’ experts to be credible. They said their research showed that there were no real differences in the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples compared to those raised by moms and dads.
Friedman said he was convinced, stating that one expert’s research “convincinlgy shows that children of same-sex copules do just as well in school as the ch ildren of heterosexual married couples, and that same sex couples are just as stable as heterosexual couples.” He also wrote that denying same-sex couples the ability to marry “has a manifestly harmful and destablilizing effect” on their children.
The plaintiffs also argued that child outcomes should have nothing to do with the marriage issue anyway because having kids isn’t a prerequesite for getting married.
Friedman agreed, stating in his ruling: “Even today, the stae of Michigan does not make fertility or the desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.’
Meanwhile, legal experts believe the gay-marriage debate ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet issued a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage. In June 2013, the nation’s highest court did strike down a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in declaring that gay couples married in states where it’s legal must receive the same federal benefits as their heterosexual counterparts. But it stopped short of finding that all gay people have a fundamental right to marriage. That same day in 2013, the high court also left in place a lower court decision that said California’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. That ruling made sex-sex marriage legal in 13 states and the District of Columbia, and allowed four other states to follow suit.
Dana Nessel, one of the lawyers for DeBoer and Rawse, said the patchwork of legislation involving same-sex marriage has led to chaos, specifically for same-sex couples who are legally recognized in one state, but then move to another and have no legal recognition. It’s especially problematic come tax time, she said, noting same-sex couples, depending on where they live, have to file separately because their marriage isn’t recognized.
“This has to be resolved,” Nessel said. “This can’t continue. You can’t have this patchwork system anymore.”
Tresa Baldas:
Comments