Politics
Judge sets Feb. 25 trial for Michigan marriage ban
Hopes dashed for quick ruling in favor of marriage rights for gay couples
April DeBoer (on left) and Jayne Rowse speak at a rally before the Michigan court hearing on marriage equality (Washington Blade photo by Chris Johnson).
DETROIT — A federal judge on Wednesday dashed the hopes of those seeking a quick ruling in favor of marriage equality in Michigan when he instead announced he would bring the case to trial beginning Feb. 25.
Following 60 minutes of oral arguments, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman declared he would hold an “expedited” trial where experts could testify on whether the state has a legitimate interest to ban same-sex marriage, denying requests from both sides to grant summary judgment. The judge granted attorneys 30 days to prepare a witness list for the trial.
“What is in dispute… is whether or not there’s a legitimate state interest, and that’s a battle of the experts,” Friedman said.
The case before the court, DeBoer v. Snyder, was filed last year by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a lesbian couple in Hazel Park, Mich. They initially filed their complaint to seek second-parent adoption rights for their three children, but later amended their complaint to ask the court to overturn the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by voters in 2004.
Friedman announced his decision to bring the case to trial after hearing arguments both for and against lifting the marriage ban from attorneys in oral arguments. Both sides drew on the U.S. Supreme Court decision against the Defense of Marriage Act in making their case on the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriage. It was the first oral arguments on marriage in federal court since the Supreme Court decisions in June.
Attorney general argues on behalf of marriage ban
Representing the state during oral arguments was Assistant Attorney General Kristin Heyse, who argued the court should deny the requests of plaintiffs in the case on the basis that Michigan’s ability to make its own decisions on domestic relations is “indisputable” following the DOMA decision.
“The relief that they request in this particular case, your honor, would require this court to usurp the same sovereign authority that governs domestic relations,” Heyse said. “This the court should decline to do.”
Carole Stanyar, one of four private attorneys representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit, made use of the DOMA decision the other way during arguments by pointing the language in the decision pertaining to children, saying the children of her clients are being harmed under state law.
“I absolutely believe, your honor, that the five justices that decided on that language were looking past that case to pass the language in Windsor to our plaintiffs, our littlest plaintiffs, to these children, to the children of gay and lesbian parents all across Michigan and all across America,” Stanyar said.
Stanyar also maintained Heyse’s interpretation of the DOMA decision is incorrect because although the Supreme Court said domestic relationships are up to the states, they can’t act in a way that’s unconstitutional with regard to the people involved.
Other cases also came into play.
Heyse maintained that Baker v. Nelson, a case seeking same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court refused to hear in 1972, provided the controlling precedent in the case. At this point, Friedman interrupted her, saying “That’s about a 40 year old case! What about Lawrence?”
But Heyse maintained the issue of homosexual relations is different than the issue of marriage, which she said is still controlled by Baker.
Further, she pointed to two other recent district court decisions in Nevada and Hawaii that upheld bans on same-sex marriage as a result of the Baker decision. However, both decisions were rendered before the Supreme Court decisions in expanding marriage equality this June.
Urging the court to avoid ruling in favor of plaintiffs by applying a heightened scrutiny to Michigan’s law and marriage and adoption, Heyse said, “There is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage or adoption.”
Prefacing her arguments by saying they weren’t an attack on the gay people, Heyse said the electorate had a legitimate interest in approving a ban on same-sex marriage and proper venue for making a decision on both the marriage and adoption issue is through the legislative process, not the courts.
“The people of the state of Michigan should be allowed to decide when and if there should be a change in the law,” Heyse said. “In 2004, nearly 2.7 million voters chose to reaffirm traditional definition of marriage, which remains between one man and one woman. That was not a vote against the gay and lesbian community, but a vote to maintain the traditional definition.”
At one point during the arguments, Stanyar and Friedman had an exchange when the attorney said the court should rule for her client because social science indisputably says gay parents are just as fit to be parents as heterosexuals.
Friedman responded her couldn’t make a ruling on any one piece of social science alone because there may be other opinions, but Stanyar held firm, saying the state provided no affidavit to the contrary.
“At this stage in history, it is no longer debatable,” Stanyar said. “These things have been proven. They’ve been proven over and over and over again. They chose to proceed on summary judgment. They haven’t offered you any affidavit.”
Also urging the court to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage was Michael Pitt, an attorney representing Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown.
Pitt maintained Brown, who filed her own a petition before the court in favor of overturning the marriage ban, would not “delay even one minute” to give marriage licenses to gay couples if the court allowed her to do so.
“The clerk knows, as we all do, that committed same-sex couples live together as a family, sometimes for decades, raise children together, provide financial stability for each other, help each other in time of illness, help each others’ family members and, at the end of life, they are there to provide comfort and say goodbye,” Pitt said. “These relationships define our personal autonomy, our liberties, and no law has ever trampled on these personal choices.”
Pro-gay lawyers see opportunity in trial
The judge’s decision to bring the case to trial is along the lines of what happened in the federal lawsuit that overturned California’s Proposition 8. When the case came before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in 2010, he ordered that a trial would be held before issuing ruling against the referendum against same-sex marriage.
Dana Nessel, another attorney representing the plaintiff couple, said on the steps of the court after the arguments she’s disappointed in the delay, but will prepare witnesses as requested by the judge.
“Naturally, there’s some mild disappointment there,” Nessel said. “But we look forward to a trial and we look forward to the opportunity to present our experts in the case. Honestly, we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to present to the court to show that same-sex parents are every bit as good as opposite-sex parents. We know that to be the truth.”
Jay Kaplan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, was present in the courtroom during the oral arguments and later told the Washington Blade the delay in a decision is “disappointing,” but a trial would be beneficial in the pursuit of marriage equality because the opposing side won’t be able to produce witnesses.
“I think what the judge is basically saying is he wants to make sure that whatever decision he renders can be backed up with strong facts, testimony and expertise,” Kaplan said. “When you look at the California case…proponents of marriage equality couldn’t find those people to back up those assertions. I think the same thing will happen in the State of Michigan. They’re not going to be able to find reputable studies with experts who can support denying gay couples the right to marry.”
Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown was also present near the court after the hearing, saying she knows of gay couples are disappointed because they called her office asking if they could obtain marriage licenses there if the court ruled for marriage equality.
“Those rights are being violated, I think, and it’s very disappointing,” Brown said.
Asked by the Washington Blade if she would help with preparing with witness lists for the trial, Brown said she’s still surprised that Friedman made the decision take the case there.
“I think we’re all still kind of surprised that this is what the judge decided today,” Brown said. “He could have done this in the summer when we had a hearing. In all the scenarios that we imagined that would happen today, this was not one of them.”
Heyse had no comment in response to the Blade’s questions following the oral arguments and directed inquiries to the attorney general’s office. It didn’t respond to requests for comment.
2026 Midterm Elections
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Referendum to take place April 21
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization, has endorsed a Virginia ballot initiative that would allow the state to redraw its congressional districts this year, ahead of the 2030 Census.
Currently, Virginia’s Redistricting Commission — a legislative body made up of eight legislators and eight citizens, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats — is responsible for redrawing congressional districts every 10 years following the Census. The proposed amendment would temporarily shift that authority to the Virginia General Assembly through 2030, before returning it to the commission in 2031.
Supporters say the push for the amendment comes in response to anti-democratic moves by several Republican-led state legislatures following demands from President Donald Trump, which have resulted in newly gerrymandered congressional maps that advocates argue disenfranchise pro-equality voters.
Under the proposed map in Virginia, Democrats could gain as many as four of the five seats currently held by Republicans in this fall’s midterm elections, when control of the narrowly divided House is up for grabs.
Six states — including Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina on the GOP side — enacted new maps last year at Trump’s behest. The most significant Democratic counter-effort so far has come from California.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement backing the measure, encouraging Virginia voters who support democracy to vote “yes,” saying it would ensure “the will of the people is heard.”
“Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around. But anti-equality lawmakers around the country, in service to Donald Trump’s assaults on democracy, are trying to undermine our elections and engineer their preferred outcome in the midterms,” Robinson said. “The American people are ready to take Congress back from the anti-equality, anti-freedom politicians that have been abusing their power to hurt all our communities and bend government to the will of a wannabe king.”
U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, who represents Virginia’s 8th Congressional District that encompasses much of Washington’s suburbs, including Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, and parts of eastern Fairfax County — has also voiced support for the measure. He has called Trump’s attempts to influence elections ahead of the November midterms a “betrayal of our democracy,” emphasizing that while the fight is ongoing, this effort is a step toward correcting the situation.
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer said in an op-ed for the Cardinal News. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is another staunch supporter of the amendment, arguing that it would, through bipartisan means, help counterbalance Trump’s efforts in what remains an uphill battle.
“As early voting begins tomorrow on Virginia’s redistricting amendment, voters should know that Virginia’s approach is different. It is temporary, directly responsive to what other states decide to do, and — most importantly — it preserves Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting process for the future,” the first female governor of the state said in a statement. “I supported the formation of Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting commission in 2020, and that support has not changed. What has changed is what we’re seeing in states across the country — and a president who says he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats before this year’s midterm elections.”
“Virginians have the opportunity to take action in response to this extraordinary moment in history,” she added. “That’s why, as a Virginia voter, I’m voting in favor of this amendment.”
Virginians for Fair Elections, the group responsible for marketing the initiative, has raised nearly $50 million dollars, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan organization focusing on sharing public documents related to financial matters of the state. The ads notably feature former President Barack Obama, who supports the measure and has hailed it as a way to “level the playing field.”
In a recent Politico article, a person close to the White House, granted anonymity, suggested the outlook for Trump’s governing majority is weakening — particularly following the unraveling of the Iran war — underscoring why the administration is pushing Republican-led states to maximize their advantage ahead of the midterms.
“This war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November — the Senate and House,” the person said.
According to The Economist, Trump holds a 37 percent approval rating, with 56 percent of respondents disapproving of his handling of the presidency.
This is not the first time Virginia has held a special election for a statewide ballot initiative. Most recently, in 1956, voters approved a measure that led to the use of public funds to provide tuition grants for students attending nonsectarian private schools.
Early voting is already underway in the Old Dominion, with Election Day set for April 21.
Politics
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
President threatened to destroy Iranian civilization in Truth Social post
Following multiple brazen Truth Social posts this week related to the ongoing war with Iran — one which he said he could wipe out “a whole civilization,” — Democrats are seizing the opportunity to gain momentum in ousting President Donald Trump from office.
As the war with Iran continues to unfold, Trump appears increasingly frustrated — and willing — to use any means necessary to achieve his goals of ending the country’s nuclear capabilities, destroying its military, and ushering in regime change. So far, none of these goals have been met. As his frustration grows, so do calls to invoke a never-before-used safeguard for the nation—the 25th Amendment.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday morning. “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”
This came only days after Trump posted a now-deleted, expletive-filled demand for the country to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on Easter Sunday, saying, “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” On the same day, Trump told The Hill he would not rule out sending ground troops. And he told Fox News Sunday that he’s “considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil” if Iran doesn’t accept his deal.
The president then set a new deadline of 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday for Iran to reach a deal with the U.S., marking yet another extension, which did lead to a two-week ceasefire.
Since the president’s tirade, Democratic legislators in federal office have condemned his words, while Republicans are quietly standing behind him. Former Trump allies are among the loudest voices advocating for invoking the 25th Amendment, as some in international government organizations have sharply called Trump’s threats illegal.
“If there’s an attack on clearly civilian infrastructure, that is not allowed under international humanitarian law,” Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the United Nations secretary-general, said last week.
That concern is heightened by the broader human rights landscape in Iran, where violations of international legal standards are already well documented — particularly when it comes to LGBTQ people.
Iran has some of the harshest laws in the world regarding LGBTQ rights, policies that human rights advocates say are themselves in violation of international law.
Under the country’s legal system, all sexual activity outside a traditional Islamic marriage is illegal, including same-sex relations. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is criminalized and, in some cases, punishable by death under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.
With international officials raising concerns about the legality of Trump’s threats, the conversation in Washington has increasingly shifted from condemnation to potential consequences, namely, whether the 25th Amendment could be used to hold him accountable.
“Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which has never been invoked, allows for the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries (or another body as Congress may provide) to declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office,” according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The vice president would then immediately assume the role of acting president.”
Although there seems to be momentum from Trump adversaries, this is unlikely, according to PolitiFact.
“For all of the partisan chatter, it is highly unlikely this legal procedure to remove a president will happen,” Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman wrote for the nonprofit political fact-checking website that is operated by the Poynter Institute.”Trump has the support of Vice President JD Vance, his Cabinet and the majority of Republicans in Congress.”
Delaware Congresswoman — and the first transgender legislator on Capitol Hill — Sarah McBride issued a statement in response to Trump’s words.
“In a political career defined by grotesque statements, this president’s horrifying, illegal, and genocidal threat this morning is among the most dangerous and appalling,” McBride said. “You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and a president cannot be allowed to threaten genocide with the United States military. Threats of war crimes and disregard for human life must be met with accountability under the law.”
She then, like many others, called for removing the president from office to protect the American people.
“Trump must go — and Republicans, whether in the Cabinet or Congress, must join Democrats in using any and all constitutional powers at our collective disposal to end this illegal war and take the gun out of this madman’s hands,” said McBride, the Congressional Democratic Women’s Caucus whip.
Mark Takano, the first openly gay person of color elected to Congress, pointed out that Trump’s ceasefire is only temporary, and does not ensure that Americans won’t be called to fight in a war they didn’t ask for.
“We heard no plan to end this war and no commitment to keep American boots out of Iran,” Takano said on X.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first openly gay member elected to the U.S. Senate, used her platform to remind Trump — and the world — that diplomacy remains critical.
“Diplomacy has always been the answer, which is why the president shouldn’t have gotten us into this war of choice,” a statement read on X. “It’s been reckless, cost U.S. soldiers their lives, and is raising prices on families. A ceasefire is a start, but Congress needs to do our jobs and end this war.”
“The House must pass articles of impeachment, and then the Senate must vote to convict and remove the President,” U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights wrote in a statement on X. “Or, the Cabinet and vice president, with congressional concurrence, must invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump.”
“Donald Trump’s instability is more clear and dangerous than ever,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Multiple other Democrats also called for removing the president for violating international and constitutional law. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for “this unhinged lunatic” to “be removed from office.” U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said, “Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.” U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), told Midas Touch Journalist Scott MacFarlane “In the last 48 hours alone, the rhetoric has crossed every line.”
In addition to Democrats, some staunch Trump supporters have also been loudly criticizing the president’s handling of the Iran war.
Conspiracy theorist, former Trump confidant, and $1.3 billion defamation case loser for spreading far-right lies, Alex Jones, asked “How do we 25th Amendment his ass?” on Monday’s InfoWars show.
Georgia Republican, former member of the House of Representatives, and former high-profile MAGA ally Marjorie Taylor Greene called Trump’s post about destroying civilizations “evil and madness” and posted a simple “25TH AMENDMENT!!!”
The White House
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Country’s anti-LGBTQ record a reported barrier
Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s special envoy for “special missions,” is making it known that he is interested in the Russian ambassadorship.
According to reporting by the Daily Mail, Grenell has “floated” his interest in the role to coworkers, but issues surrounding the former German ambassador’s sexuality have made securing the position more difficult.
“He had an interest in the job — or at least he floated the idea to select colleagues. But Putin’s regime is extremely anti–LGBTQ, so I’m sure they didn’t take that thought too seriously,” one source close to Grenell told the Daily Mail. “That would never happen anyway.”
Grenell has long been one of Trump’s closest allies and was the first openly gay person to hold a Cabinet-level position. He was ousted last month as acting director of the Kennedy Center, a position he had held since Trump reestablished the board to be composed of his political supporters in 2025.
In addition to leading the nation’s cultural arts center, Grenell previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Germany from 2018 to 2020, and as the special presidential envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations from 2019 to 2021. He was also a State Department spokesperson to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration and a Fox News contributor.
Russia has a longstanding history of being anti-LGBTQ.
In 2013, the country passed a law banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors. In December 2022, Putin signed legislation expanding the ban, making it illegal to promote same-sex relationships or suggest that non-heterosexual orientations are “normal” for people of any age, widening censorship across media and public life.
The Russian courts have also supported the restriction of LGBTQ identity in the country. In November 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court granted a request from the Justice Ministry to outlaw the “international LGBT movement” as “extremist,” allowing authorities to criminalize advocacy and potentially prosecute individuals for expressions of LGBTQ+ identity or support.
In addition to LGBTQ rights issues, the war between Russia and Ukraine has become a global concern. Ukraine, which was part of the former Soviet Union, includes the territory known as Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. The annexation remains a major point of international dispute over sovereignty. Since 2022, Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine has escalated the conflict, drawing global attention and sanctions while straining U.S.-Russia relations.
The U.S. has spent $188 billion in total related to the war in Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Russian ambassadorship seems to be a difficult role to fill, according to additional information presented by the Daily Mail. With Trump already being seen as relatively positive by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and with close ties to members of his Cabinet and family — like son-in-law Jared Kushner — the ambassadorship is complicated and viewed as less critical than in previous administrations.
“There is no rush to fill that role because it has now been deemed unnecessary,” another source told the U.K.-based publication.
Bob Foresman, a seasoned businessman with decades-long ties to the Kremlin, was reportedly once the frontrunner, according to the Daily Mail. Foresman served as vice chair of UBS Investment Bank and Deputy Chairman of Renaissance Capital between 2006 and 2009, and earlier led investment banking for Russia at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein from 1997 to 2000.
“This is a pattern, especially in the Trump administration — special envoys big–footing the ambassadors,” a source told the Daily Mail. “It is shocking that we are already in April and we don’t have an ambassador to one of the most important countries in the world.”
Belarusian president signs bill to allow LGBTQ rights crackdown
‘The Pitt’ stars discuss what season two gets right about queer representation
My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact
Queery: Meet artist, performer John Levengood
Project GLOW celebrates LGBTQ acts
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Comings & Goings
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
Viktor Orbán ousted in Hungarian elections
