Connect with us

Politics

Judge sets Feb. 25 trial for Michigan marriage ban

Hopes dashed for quick ruling in favor of marriage rights for gay couples

Published

on

Jayne Rowse, Michigan, gay news, Washington Blade, marriage equality, same-sex marriage, gay marriage
April DeBoer, Jayne Rowse, Michigan, gay news, Washington Blade, marriage equality, same-sex marriage, gay marriage

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

Ind. prosecutor declines to press charges over false Buttigieg child welfare complaint

Former Biden-Harris Cabinet member declined to comment on decision

Published

on

Pete Buttigieg (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

An Indiana prosecutor has declined to file criminal charges against a woman who made a false child welfare complaint against Pete Buttigieg.

Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary in the Biden-Harris administration, was accused in June of posing a threat to his children via an anonymous call to police that resulted in him being temporarily separated from his four-year-old twins.

Marshall County Prosecuting Attorney E. Nelson Chipman Jr. opted not to pursue charges against the Alabama woman who filed the false child welfare claim against the Democratic political figure while she was in Marshall County.

According to ABC 57, the television station in South Bend that published a letter from Michigan State Police to Indiana State Police, the 50-year-old woman, identified only as TJ of Alabama, was responsible for the “brief and intrusive investigation” into Buttigieg and his family.

In the letter to Indiana State Police, Michigan State Police described TJ’s documented alcoholism and other chemical dependencies, as well as hallucinations and delusional thinking. The prosecutor also noted that TJ has self-identified as God and claims to hear voices only she can hear.

The letter from Michigan State Police to Indiana State Police states:

“Your investigation reveals that TJ, 50 years old, has a documented history of alcohol abuse and has experienced numerous treatment facilities and programs for alcoholism and other chemical dependency over the years. Further, TJ has a long history of mental illness, manifested by hallucinations and delusional thinking which includes frequently responding to voices only she hears and grandiose ideation including self-identifying as God. She frequently reports she has enjoyed an evening meal with Barack and Michele Obama.

TJ is from Alabama. During her relatively short stay here, TJ was able to generate three separate police encounters that resulted in reports, one of which resulted in TJ’s arrest for domestic battery. I note her BAC in that case was reported at .323. I also note one of the three early reports was based upon TJ’s claim of herself being a victim of sexual abuse at the age of 3 by her mother some 47 years prior. Her explanation for such a delayed report was incoherent.

As you found out, TJ returned to Alabama and took up residence in a treatment facility only to be soon evicted for a rule violation. She currently resides in a half-way house near Alabama, with very limited mental health treatment options available. I note TJ’s abusive and harassing attitude has resulted in restricting only somewhat her access to a telephone, and that she continues to have access to computers at the facility. Obviously she may still have the ability to file additional complaints. No doubt a regrettable situation.

In light of the totality of circumstances, I am unable to conclude that TJ is capable of forming the requisite intent to support a criminal conviction for this offense. Accordingly, this office will not be filing a criminal case in this matter.

Thank you, as always, for a thorough investigation and cogent report.

Stay safe.

Best regards,

E. Nelson Chipman, Jr.

Marshall County Prosecuting Attorney”

When the situation first arose in June, Buttigieg opened up about the experience via his Substack, where he described the situation as one of the worst things that has ever happened to his family — one that resulted in him being separated from his twins, Joseph August “Gus” and Penelope Rose, for their safety.

“The caller said that he had spoken to a woman who claimed to have met me at a conference several years ago in Alabama, where she said I told her that I had committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed my children were still at risk,” Buttigieg wrote in a post he titled “A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family.” “I am a reasonable man. I try to keep as calm and low-key as possible. But I cannot describe the mix of rage and sadness that I feel at the idea that someone brought our children into this.”

A Buttigieg spokesman declined to comment on the prosecutor’s decision not to pursue charges, but did tell the Washington Post in a statement: “This has been a painful and infuriating situation for the family. They are in touch with Michigan authorities, seeking answers and accountability for what happened.”

In response to the story Buttigieg shared on his Substack, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement:

“I know how I would feel if someone tried to come between me and my kids. This is truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. It takes an awful, hateful person to question someone’s fitness as a parent just because of who they are, who they love, or in Sec. Buttigieg’s case, perhaps even who he speaks out against politically. We’re thinking of Pete, Chasten, and their whole family in this moment — and we aren’t resting until all LGBTQ+ families have the kind of safety and justice every one of us deserves.”

The Washington Blade reached out to Michigan State Police after the story initially broke to ask if any disciplinary action would be imposed on the woman who made the false report, but was told to file a FOIA request to view the full report. After filing a FOIA request, the Blade was denied access to any additional information.

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

Chris Pappas wins NH Democratic Senate primary

Gay congressman running to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) speaks at the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund's 2025 National Champagne Brunch in D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

New Hampshire Congressman Chris Pappas on Tuesday won the Democratic primary in the race to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) in the U.S. Senate.

Pappas defeated Karishma Manzur, who was his primary challenger, by a 61.8-36.1 percent margin.

The gay congressman will face off against former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, who defeated former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in the Republican primary.

“Tonight’s victory sends a clear message that voters are looking for leaders who will fight for their rights, their freedoms, and to be treated with dignity and respect,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement. 

She campaigned for Pappas in Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest city, on Aug. 30.

“Chris Pappas has delivered results, stood up for equality, and showed up for the people he serves,” said Robinson in her statement. “HRC was proud to mobilize Equality Voters across New Hampshire to help power this win. We don’t have a second to waste between now and November. We look forward to continuing our work with Rep. Pappas as he drives toward victory in November so he can help return a pro-equality majority to the United States Senate.”

poll the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released on Aug. 26 showed Sununu ahead of Pappas by a 45-43 percent margin if they were to face off in the general election. The margin of error is +/-2.1 percent.

Pappas would become the first openly gay man elected to the U.S. Senate if he were to win in November.

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

Markey’s primary win deemed success for LGBTQ activists

Mass. lawmaker champions transgender rights

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey speaks outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 13, 2026. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) clinched the Democratic seat for his reelection campaign in Massachusetts’s primary election on Tuesday.

Markey won the deep-blue state with 64.8 percent of the vote, according to NBC News, triumphing over Marine Corps combat veteran and Congressman Seth Moulton, who received 35.2 percent of the vote.

Massachusetts’s primary election, which determined which Democratic candidate will head to the polls to face off against the Republican challenger in November, is being considered a victory for LGBTQ-inclusive policy, as well as for a divisive pro-transgender rights candidate — both things Markey has become an outspoken champion of.

Markey has experience at multiple levels of government, from the state level, where he served three terms in the state House of Representatives, to his federal tenure, including 20 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and is now serving his second term as a senator. He has become a fixture of a changing Democratic Party in one of the most consistently blue places in the U.S.

This primary — and much of the national discussion surrounding the Senate seat — focused a lot of campaigning power on fighting the growing sentiment, led mostly by Republicans, that the frustration many Americans feel lends itself to an anti-establishment and anti-incumbent attitude.

Markey ran his campaign using his past as a reflection of his commitment to constantly putting his best foot forward for Bay Staters — particularly with apprehension for issues younger and more progressive democrats have been righting for — including Green New Deal and “Medicare for All” while Moulton — who was also elected to federal office prior to this run — campaigned on being younger than Markey, arguing that he was not the same type of established politician.

Moulton also faced backlash for negative comments about trans athletes, sparking criticism for those who did want younger candidate but want for trans rights to be protected.

Markey’s track record of supporting the LGBTQ community is one of the most clear in federal politics, one that has garnered a “100 percent lifetime voting record” on the Human Rights Campaign’s PAC politician review scorecard.

That list of Markey’s actions includes being a cosponsor of the Equality Act, driving landmark legislation to ensure federal protections for LGBTQ Americans, and being one of the most vocal proponents for trans rights in the federal government — specifically in multiple appropriations bills and in the National Defense Authorization Act. He was also the lead sponsor of the Transgender Health Care Access Act and the Transgender Bill of Rights resolution.

Markey first introduced the Transgender Bill of Rights in the Senate in 2023, where it ultimately failed to be brought to law. He reintroduced the legislation this year once again. This was a direct response to the attitude pushed by many conservatives after 2021, when the push to minimize trans rights started to become a key part of their cause and has been constantly propped up by the Trump-Vance administration.

“Massachusetts needs a senator who stands up and fights back, a senator who never forgets who they are fighting for,” Markey said during his victory speech. “That has been the mission of my life, and it always will be.”

Following the calling of the primary, a slew of LGBTQ organizations rallied behind Markey, many pushing his past as an asset that puts his money where his mouth is through advocating for legislation specifically protecting the LGBTQ community.

Tyler Hack, the executive director of the Christopher Street Project, an organization dedicated to pushing for legal protections for trans americans, released a statement following Markey’s win. Hack argued that putting forward such a staunchly pro-trans candidate is a win for the community, especially after endorsing him earlier this year.

“Tonight, anti-trans politics lost. Massachusetts rejected the idea that attacking transgender people is a shortcut to political power. Voters chose a different path: one where equality is not negotiable, cruelty is not courage, and transgender people do not have to disappear for Democrats to succeed.”

The Human Rights Campaign also endorsed him as a candidate earlier this year and issued a statement via its president, Kelley Robinson.

“Ed Markey has spent decades fighting for LGBTQ+ equality, for working people, and for a more livable world,” Robinson said. “He knows why equality matters. He’s stood with us no matter what. We were proud to endorse him this year, and when a pro-equality majority takes back the Senate this fall, we will continue to count on him as a champion for our community.”

Markey is running for reelection against Republican John Deaton in November, where he is expected to win.

Continue Reading

Popular