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
Meet the LGBTQ candidates running for U.S. House, Senate
Pappas would become first out gay man elected to upper chamber
The midterm elections are often seen as a report card for the party in power, giving voters an opportunity to weigh in on the direction of the country after two years of unified control of the federal government. With Republicans controlling the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, the 2026 elections could reshape the balance of power in Washington and determine what the next two years of federal policy will look like.
Among the candidates looking to shape that future are a large number of openly LGBTQ politicians running for federal office. All of the candidates listed below openly identify as members of the LGBTQ community and are running as Democrats, seeking seats in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. (See below for a list of LGBTQ incumbents.)
The New Candidates
U.S. Senate:
Chris Pappas — NH
The United States House of Representatives:
Cait Conley — NY-17
Jeremy Moss — MI-11
JoAnna Mendoza — AZ-06
Marni von Wilpert — CA-48
Scott Wiener — CA-11
Chris Gallant — NY-1
JD Ford — IN-5
Janelle Sarauw — U.S. Virgin Islands
If all of these candidates running for federal office win their seats, this would make the federal government the queerest legislative term for Congress ever.
Chris Pappas would become the first openly gay male senator if he wins the race against Republican John E. Sununu. Pappas is currently leading early polls 50% to Sununu’s 42%, and is seen as a fairly centrist Democrat with a slew of accomplishments passed through the House since his election in 2018 that make him a desired candidate for the purple “Granite State.”
Cait Conley is fighting to take two-term incumbent Republican Mike Lawler’s seat for New York’s 17th district, covering parts of Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties. Conley has a long history of working as a public servant through her extensive military service, which includes six overseas deployments with the Army and work with the National Security Council. Current polling shows she has an advantage over her opponent, 64% to his 36%, making this one a race to watch.
Jeremy Moss is running for election in Michigan, after quickly rising in the ranks within the Great Lake state. Moss, who was elected to his city’s city council, then to the state House, then to state Senate has had a lengthy connection with state politics for someone so young. He also served as the state’s first gay president pro tempore. He is running in the Detroit suburbs, including Oakland County. Nearly all polling puts Moss in the lead with some already giving him 99%.
JoAnna Mendoza is a veteran of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps running for a House seat for the Tucson and southeastern Arizona area. She has been outspoken about how the cost of everyday necessities under the current leadership of President Trump and Republicans in Congress has made people in her state less safe. She is currently locked in a tight race with her Republican counterpart, leading Juan Ciscomani 47% to 45%.
Marni von Wilpert is running to represent northern San Diego County. She has experience representing the area as a San Diego City Council member, former prosecutor, and Obama workers’ rights attorney. Von Wilpert holds a narrow lead over Republican Jim Desmond, 45% to 42%.
Scott Wiener is looking for a chance to take former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat in the San Francisco area. Weiner holds a narrow lead over the Pelosi-endorsed San Francisco supervisor Connie Chan. A New York Times poll has him leading 45% to Chang’s 40%.
Chris Gallant has a slew of federal accomplishments under his belt, from working as an FAA air traffic controller to serving in the U.S. Army and New York Army National Guard, including as a Black Hawk helicopter pilot, and is a volunteer firefighter on Long Island. Despite all of this dedication to public service, he’s running in a solidly red district and trailing his GOP opponent Nick LaLota, 81% to 28% in a recent prediction poll.
JD Ford is fighting to represent the northern Indianapolis suburbs and north-central Indiana against Republican incumbent Victoria Spartz. He was the first and only openly LGBTQ person elected to the Indiana Legislature, running his campaign on making living more affordable. Polling puts him slightly behind Spartz 48% to 46%.
Janelle Sarauw is trying to win the U.S. Virgin Island’s seat in the U.S. Congress. While there is no voting power, the seat can participate in debates. Sarauw is likely to win the seat after sweeping the primary earlier this year, and will face off against Shelley Moorhead, an independent, in November.
The Incumbents
Becca Balint — VT-At Large
Emily Randall — WA-06
Eric Sorensen — IL-17
Mark Pocan — WI-02
Mark Takano — CA-39
Ritchie Torres — NY-15
Robert Garcia — CA-42
Sarah McBride — DE
Sharice Davids — KS-03
Becca Balint is running for reelection to represent all of Vermont, making her one of the few candidates on this list who represents an entire state rather than a congressional district. Balint, a former teacher and Vermont state senator, has made housing affordability, mental health, and protecting democracy central parts of her platform. Recent polling gives Balint a substantial lead over Republican challenger Gerald Malloy, 60% to Gerald’s 30%.
Emily Randall is running for reelection in Washington’s 6th Congressional District, which includes the Olympic Peninsula and parts of the Kitsap Peninsula across Puget Sound from Seattle. Randall, who previously served in the Washington state Senate, has made expanding access to affordable health care a major part of her platform. She appears to be in a relatively strong position for reelection where she won 60% of the vote in Washington’s August top-two primary, while her Republican opponent Teresa Fox received about 25%.
Eric Sorensen is running for another term representing western Illinois. The former television meteorologist has centered his congressional work on lowering costs for working families. There is no public polling in the race, but a current nonpartisan forecast gives Sorensen 59% of the vote compared to Republican Dillan Vancil, with 40%.
Mark Pocan is seeking to continue representing Madison and south-central Wisconsin. Pocan, who has served in Congress since 2013, has focused on issues including health care affordability, workers’ rights and LGBTQ+ equality. There is no public polling of the race, but the current field has no Republican candidate, and a nonpartisan forecast gives Pocan more than a 99% modeled chance of winning.
Mark Takano is running for reelection in California’s 39th congressional district, which includes Riverside and portions of the Inland Empire east of Los Angeles. Takano has made health care and veterans’ issues major parts of his congressional work. There is no public polling of the race, but in his primary he came in first with 61% of the vote compared to Republican Steve Manos’s 39%.
Ritchie Torres is running for another term representing New York’s 15th congressional district in the Bronx. Torres, who previously served on the New York City Council, has made housing, economic development, education, and public safety major parts of his platform. There is no current public polling of the race, but multiple prediction sites have it squarely his to win.
Robert Garcia is seeking another term representing California’s 42nd congressional district, which includes Long Beach and southeastern Los Angeles County. Garcia, the former mayor of Long Beach, has focused on issues including infrastructure, transportation, education, and LGBTQ+ rights while in Congress. There is no public polling of the race, but forecasting has Garcia winning the seat over Republican Brian Burley 99% to 1%.
Sarah McBride, is running for reelection to represent Delaware’s sole congressional district, meaning she represents the entire state. McBride, who made history as the first openly transgender member of Congress, has centered her campaign on lowering health care costs, protecting reproductive health care, and strengthening workers’ rights. There is no public polling of the general election, but a current nonpartisan forecast gives McBride a 99.1% modeled chance of winning against Republican Joseph Arminio.
Sharice Davids is seeking another term representing Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District, which covers the Kansas side of the Kansas City metropolitan area. Davids, a former White House fellow and attorney, has made agriculture, lowering costs, and health care central parts of her platform. There is no current public polling of the race, but prediction polling shows she has a 94% chance of winning her race.
White House
Trump-appointed judge restores White House TV pool access
Judge called in to question president’s justification of the ban
A federal judge ordered the White House to restore West Wing press credentials to three news organizations after President Donald Trump attempted to bar their access for unfavorable reporting.
Early Thursday morning, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a temporary restraining order brought by POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW as part of a joint lawsuit. The lawsuit cites the imperative role of a “free press” and ordered the 78 journalists’ credentials returned to the three outlets for at least the next two weeks as litigation plays out.
In the eight-page ruling, the judge goes over a slew of laws that Trump may have violated in banning the three media groups — from stepping on their First Amendment rights to a free press to the Fifth Amendment right to due process.
The judge also questioned Trump’s justification for removing the outlets, originally saying it was a matter of national security.
“The court is skeptical — at least on this record — that defendants’ interest in safeguarding national security is the actual motivation for, or is even advanced by, the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes,” Kelly wrote in an 8-page ruling issued just before 1 a.m. ET.
“Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was ‘banning’ plaintiffs from the White House — instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of plaintiffs’ reporting,” the judge added.
The Washington Blade reached out to the White House press office asking if the administration would file an appeal to keep the journalists out of the West Wing but did not hear back before publication time.
White House
White House press pool pushes back after Trump bars three outlets
As President Trump refuses entry to outlets he deems unreasonable, lawsuits have been filed to regain access to the West Wing
Past the first checkpoint to get into the White House, multiple carts filled with camera equipment sat along a fence. Wagons loaded with tripods, cables, mics, and cameras sat just past where they normally would be working at full power. Today, they were turned off and packed away.
Last week, President Donald Trump decided to bar CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House following reporting he considers “FAKE NEWS.”
Trump, in a post on Truth Social on Monday morning, described his move as “instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS,” which he said has “grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America.”
“It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control,” he wrote on the social media site he owns. “It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!”
As a result, all of the major television networks that comprise the television press pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News — suspended their White House TV pool coverage. They decided to no longer send camera crews to cover President Donald Trump’s events.
“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government,” the five White House TV pool networks said in a joint statement Monday. “No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”
POLITICO, CNN and MS NOW filed a lawsuit Monday to immediately restore access for their reporters, who had their credentials confiscated by the Secret Service.
In the White House, there was a noticeable shift in the atmosphere. The Washington Blade is the only LGBTQ news outlet that is part of the White House Press Pool, and was acting as the primary print pooler as the situation unfolded on Monday.
Whispers about who might be kicked from the press pool next could be heard both in the press area of the West Wing, as well as outside the part of the White House dedicated to filming the president’s office. The area where TV stations normally film their live shots of the White House while reporting looked less busy than a normal Monday — especially as the president made his way to New York City ahead of the UN General Assembly meeting this week.
CNN’s outdoor filming area, which is staffed nearly at all times, sat dark with a green cover over the space that normally houses its cameras and political reporters like Kaitlan Collins.
There were small signs of solidarity from other outlets in the press office. A sign that has hung outside one of the news offices in the West Wing was updated. It originally read, “WE STAND WITH AP” following President Trump’s first attempt at removing a news outlet he deemed unfavorable. It now includes “I STAND WITH AP CNN MSNOW POLITICO.”
The change could also be felt as the press pool attempted to cover the president.
There was a ribbon cutting in honor of the $6 million helipad installed at Trump’s behest — which had nearly no audio as a result of fewer microphones in the space following the outlets’ removal on Monday afternoon, and partly because of the loud sound of Marine One.
Vice President JD Vance defended Trump when asked about the changes to TV access at the White House, standing with the president despite this likely being a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free and fair press.
“He’s not banning media outlets. What he’s doing is saying we’re not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda,” Vance said, alleging that 92% of the stories from CNN, MS NOW and Politico about Trump are “negative.”
“That’s not representative of the American people. It’s not representative of public opinion,” Vance said.
He pushed back on the notion that this is a hindrance on free speech — claiming access to the president through White House visitation is a privilege — a privilege that in this administration, at least until courts weigh in, could change the landscape of the American media system.
“It’s about basic fairness. They can still report. They still have the access to free speech. They’re just not going to get an office in the White House anymore,” Vance said.
Jacqui Heinrich, the White House Correspondents Association President condemned the president’s actions in restricting media access in a statement sent to WHCA members on Saturday.
“Today’s action revoking access for journalists from CNN, POLITICO, and MSNOW violates the First Amendment. The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future.
“The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably. That’s why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting. The WHCA calls on the administration to immediately restore our colleagues’ access.”
Vote now! Best Of LGBTQ DC readers’ choice awards
Meet the LGBTQ candidates running for U.S. House, Senate
Ana Brnabić becomes world’s first openly lesbian head of state
529 openly LGBTQ candidates running in Brazilian election
