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

Congress

Torres: gay Venezuelan asylum seeker is ‘poster child’ for Trump’s ‘abuses against due process’

Congressman spoke with the Blade Thursday

Published

on

Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York told the Washington Blade during an interview Thursday that his party erred in focusing so much attention on demands for the Trump-Vance administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. when the wrongful deportation of Andry Hernández Romero “was much more egregious.”

Hernández is a gay Venezuelan national who was deported to El Salvador in March and imprisoned in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT.

“In the case of Andry, the government admits that it has no evidence of gang membership, but he was deported without due process, without a notification to his attorney, without a court hearing to contest the allegations against him, without a court order authorizing his deportation,” the congressman said.

“He had not even the slightest semblance of due process,” Torres said. “And even though he had a court hearing scheduled for March 17, the Trump administration proceeded to deport him on March 15, in violation of a court order.”

“I think we as a party should have held up Andry as the poster child for the abuses against due process, because his case is much more sympathetic,” Torres said. “There’s no one who thinks that Andry is a gang member.”

“Also,” the congressman added, “he’s not a quote-unquote illegal immigrant. He was a lawful asylum seeker. He sought asylum lawfully under the statutes of the United States, but he was deported unlawfully at the hands of the Trump administration.”

Torres was among the 49 members of Congress who joined with Democratic U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California in writing to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday demanding information about Romero, including proof of life.

The lawmakers urged the State Department to facilitate his access to legal counsel and take steps to return him, expressing fear for his safety — concerns that Torres reiterated on Thursday.

“Jails and prisons can be dangerous places for gay men, and that is especially true of a place like CECOT,” the congressman said. “He fled Latin America to escape violent homophobia. There are a few places on earth that have as much institutionalized homophobia as jails and prisons, and so I do fear for his safety.”

“I released a video telling the story of Andry,” Torres noted, adding, “I feel like we have to do more to raise awareness and the video is only the beginning … And you know, the fact that Abrego Garcia is returning to the United States shows that the administration has the ability to bring back the migrants who were unlawfully deported.”

Torres spoke with the Blade just after Padilla was forcibly removed from a federal building in Los Angeles after attempting to question U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference on immigration Thursday.

Footage of the senator being pushed out of the room, onto the floor, and handcuffed by officers wearing FBI identifying vests drew outrage from top Democrats in California and beyond.

“It’s the latest reminder that Donald Trump and his administration have no respect for anything or anyone but himself,” Torres told the Blade. “And every bit as outrageous as Donald Trump himself has been the enabling on the part of the congressional Republicans who are aiding and abetting his authoritarian abuses.”

“We have to be vigilant in resisting Donald Trump,” the congressman said. “We have to resist him on the streets through grassroots mobilization. We have to resist him in the courtrooms through litigation. We have to resist him in the halls of Congress through legislation.”

Torres added that “we have to win back the majority in 2026” and “if Republicans have no interest in holding Donald Trump accountable, then those Republicans should be fired from public office” because “we need a Congress that is able and willing to hold Donald Trump accountable, to stand up to his authoritarian assault on our democracy.”

Resisting is “a matter of free speech,” he said, noting that the president’s aim is to “create a reign of terror that intimidates people into silence,” but “we cannot remain silent. We have to unapologetically and courageously exercise our right to free speech, our right to assemble peacefully, and our right to resist an authoritarian president like Donald Trump.”

Continue Reading

Congress

Padilla forcibly removed from federal building for questioning DHS secretary

Prominent Democrats rushed to defend senator

Published

on

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed from a federal building in Los Angeles after attempting to ask questions of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference on immigration Thursday

The city has been rattled in recent days as protestors objecting to the Trump-Vance administration’s immigration crackdowns clashed with law enforcement and then the president deployed National Guard troops and U.S. Marines, which was seen as a dramatic escalation.

According to a video shared by his office, the senator, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, introduced himself and said, I have questions for the secretary.” After he was pushed out of the room, officers with FBI-identifying vests told Padilla to put his hands behind his back and handcuffed him.

“Senator Padilla is currently in Los Angeles exercising his duty to perform Congressional oversight of the federal government’s operations in Los Angeles and across California,” reads a statement from his office.

“He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference,” the statement continued. “He tried to ask the secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.”

Democrats were furious, with many releasing strong statements online condemning the actions of law enforcement officers, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D), and the state’s other U.S. senator, Adam Schiff (D).

Human Rights Campaign Chief of Staff Jay Brown also issued a statement: “A sitting U.S. senator should be allowed to ask a Cabinet secretary a question at a press conference — in his own state, on an issue affecting his constituents — without being violently thrown to the floor and handcuffed. Everyone who cares about our country must condemn this undemocratic act. Full stop.”



Continue Reading

Congress

51 lawmakers sign letter to Rubio about Andry Hernández Romero

U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) spoke about gay Venezuelan asylum seeker

Published

on

Andry Hernández Romero (Photo courtesy of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center)

Forty nine members of Congress and two U.S. senators, all Democrats, signed a letter Monday to Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding information about Andry Hernández Romero, a gay Venezuelan national who was deported to El Salvador and imprisoned in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT

“We are deeply concerned about the health and wellbeing of Mr. Hernández Romero, who left
Venezuela after experiencing discriminatory treatment because of his sexual orientation and
opposition to Venezuela’s authoritarian government,” the lawmakers wrote. They urged the State Department to facilitate his access to legal counsel and take steps to return him.

After passing a credible fear interview and while awaiting a court hearing in March, agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reportedly transported Hernández out of the U.S. without due process or providing evidence that he had committed any crime.

In the months since, pressure has been mounting. This past WorldPride weekend in Washington was kicked off with a rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and a fundraiser, both supporting Hernández and attended by high profile figures including members of Congress, like U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.)

U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) was among the four members who wrote to Rubio about Hernández in April. On Friday, he spoke with the Washington Blade before he and his colleagues, many more of them this time, sent the second letter to Rubio.

“There’s a lot of obviously horrible things that are happening with the asylum process and visas and international students and just the whole of our value system as it relates to immigration,” he said, which “obviously, is under attack.”

“Andry’s case, I think, is very unique and different,” the congressman continued. “There is, right now, public support that is building. I think he has captured people’s attention. And it’s growing — this is a movement that is not slowing down. He’s going to be a focal point for Pride this year. I mean, I think people around the world are interested in the story.”

Garcia said he hopes the momentum will translate to progress on requests for proof of life, adding that he was optimistic after meeting with Hernández’s legal team earlier on Friday.

“I mean, the president, Kristi Noem, Marco Rubio — any of these folks could could ask to see if just he’s alive,” the congressman said, referring to the secretary of Homeland Security, whom he grilled during a hearing last month. ICE is housed under the DHS.

“People need to remember, the most important part of this that people need to remember, this isn’t just an immigration issue,” Garcia noted. “This is a due process issue. This is an asylum case. We gave him this appointment. The United States government told him to come to his appointment, and then we sent him to another country, not his own, and locked him up with no due process. That’s the issue.”

Garcia said that so far neither he nor his colleagues nor Hernández’s legal team were able to get “any answers from the administration, which is why we’re continuing to advocate, which is why we’re continuing to reach out to Secretary Rubio.”

“A lot more Democrats are now engaged on this issue,” he said. U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, both from California, joined Monday’s letter. “The more that we can get folks to understand how critical this is, the better. The momentum matters here. And I think Pride does provide an opportunity to share his story.”

Asked what the next steps might be, Garcia said “we’re letting his legal team really take the lead on strategy,” noting that Hernández’s attorneys have “already engaged with the ACLU” and adding, “It’s very possible that the Supreme Court could take this on.”

In the meantime, the congressman said “part of our job is to make sure that that people don’t forget Andry and that there is awareness about him, and I think there’s a responsibility, particularly during WorldPride, and during Pride, all throughout the month — like, this is a story that people should know. People should know his name and and people should be aware of what’s going on.”

Continue Reading

Popular