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.
Congress
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
One poll showed gay Democratic congressman nearly tied with Kathy Hochul
Gay Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres of New York is unlikely to challenge New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) in the state’s next gubernatorial race, he said during an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“I’m unlikely to run for governor,” he said. ““I feel like the assault that we’ve seen on the social safety net in the Bronx is so unprecedented. It’s so overwhelming that I’m going to keep my focus on Washington, D.C.”
Torres and Hochul were nearly tied in a poll this spring of likely Democratic voters in New York City, fueling speculation that the congressman might run. A Siena College poll, however, found Hochul leading with a wider margin.
Back in D.C., the congressman and his colleagues are unified in their opposition to President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which heads back to the House after passing the Senate by one vote this week.
To pay for tax cuts that disproportionately advantage the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the president and Congressional Republicans have proposed massive cuts to Medicaid and other social programs.
A provision in the Senate version of the bill that would have blocked the use of federal funds to reimburse medical care for transgender youth was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and ultimately struck from the legislation, reportedly after pressure from transgender U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) and lesbian U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
Torres on “Morning Joe” said, “The so-called Big Beautiful Bill represents a betrayal of the working people of America and nowhere more so than in the Bronx,” adding, “It’s going to destabilize every health care provider, every hospital.”
Congress
House Democrats oppose Bessent’s removal of SOGI from discrimination complaint forms
Congressional Equality Caucus sharply criticized move
A letter issued last week by a group of House Democrats objects to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s removal of sexual orientation and gender identity as bases for sex discrimination complaints in several Equal Employment Opportunity forms.
Bessent, who is gay, is the highest ranking openly LGBTQ official in American history and the second out Cabinet member next to Pete Buttigieg, who served as transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The signatories to the letter include a few out members of Congress, Congressional Equality Caucus chair and co-chairs Mark Takano (Calif.), Ritchie Torres (N.Y.), and Becca Balint (Vt.), along with U.S. Reps. Nikema Williams (Ga.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Joyce Beatty (Ohio), Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
The letter explains the “critical role” played by the EEO given the strictures and limits on how federal employees can find recourse for unlawful workplace discrimination — namely, without the ability to file complaints directly with the Employment Opportunity Commission or otherwise engage with the agency unless the complainant “appeal[s] an agency’s decision following the agency’s investigation or request[s] a hearing before an administrative judge.”
“Your attempt to remove ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexual orientation’ as bases for sex discrimination complaints in numerous Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) forms will create unnecessary hurdles to employees filing EEO complaints and undermine enforcement of federal employee’s nondiscrimination protections,” the members wrote in their letter.
They further explain the legal basis behind LGBTQ inclusive nondiscrimination protections for federal employees in the EEOC’s decisions in Macy v. Holder (2012) and Baldwin v. Foxx (2015) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
“It appears that these changes may be an attempt by the department to dissuade employees from reporting gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without forms clearly enumerating gender identity and sexual orientation as forms of sex discrimination, the average employee who experiences these forms of discrimination may see these forms and not realize that the discrimination they experienced was unlawful and something that they can report and seek recourse for.”
“A more alarming view would be that the department no longer plans to fulfill its legal obligations to investigate complaints of gender identity and sexual orientation and ensure its
employees are working in an environment free from these forms of discrimination,” they added.
Congress
Senate parliamentarian orders removal of gender-affirming care ban from GOP reconciliation bill
GOP Senate Leader John Thune (S.D.) hoped to pass the bill by end-of-week
Restrictions on the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care will be stripped from the Republican-led Senate reconciliation bill, following a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian on Tuesday that struck down a number of health related provisions.
The legislation banned coverage for transgender medical care through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, language that was also included in the House version of the bill passed on May 22 with a vote of 215-214.
The parliamentarian’s decision also rejected Republican proposals for a Medicaid provider tax framework, which allows states to charge health care providers and use the funds to support their programs, along with broader cuts to Medicaid.
Amid calls to override Tuesday’s ruling from Republicans like U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (Fla.), GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) told reporters “That would not be a good outcome for getting a bill done.”
He also acknowledged that the timing and schedule might have to be adjusted. Senate Republicans had hoped to pass the reconciliation bill by the end of this week, though this was not a legal or procedural deadline.
Dubbed the “one big, beautiful bill” by President Donald Trump, the legislation would extend tax breaks from 2017 that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporations. To cover the cost, which is estimated to exceed $4 trillion over 10 years, the bill would make drastic cuts to social welfare programs, particularly Medicaid.
Democrats are not in a position to negotiate across the aisle with Republicans holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, but for months they have been calling attention to the effort by their GOP colleagues to strip Americans of their health insurance to pay for the tax breaks.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 10.9 million people would lose their coverage, either through Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Some Republicans like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) are pushing back against the deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing they would be devastating for many of their constituents and also to hospitals, nursing homes, and community health care providers in rural areas.
In a statement emailed to the Washington Blade on Tuesday, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said, “Anti-trans extremists are attempting to use the full power of the government to hurt kids, and recent Supreme Court decisions in Skrmetti and Medina are enabling their quest.”
While today’s ruling by the Senate parliamentarian is a temporary win, I will keep pushing back on these shameful attempts to harm trans kids and their families for trying to live authentically,” said the senator, who also serves as ranking member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, also shared a statement with the Washington Blade addressing the parliamentarian’s ruling:
“This ruling by the Senate Parliamentarian is a win for the transgender people who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access the healthcare they need to live fuller, happier, and healthier lives—but the fight is not over yet,” the congressman said.
“Republican Senators must abide by her ruling and remove the ban from the final version of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill,” he said. “Yet, even with this provision removed, this bill is terrible for the American people, including trans Americans. Every Equality Caucus member voted against it in the House and we’re ready to do so again if the Senate sends it back to the House.”
The Human Rights Campaign issued a press release with a statement from the organization’s vice president for government affairs, David Stacy:
“The fact remains that this bill belongs in the trash. It continues to include devastating cuts to health care programs — including Medicaid — that would disproportionately harm the LGBTQ+ community, all so the already rich can receive huge tax cuts,” Stacy said.
“While it comes as a relief that the Senate parliamentarian concluded that one provision in the nightmarish reconciliation bill that would have denied essential, best practice health care to transgender adults does not belong, we aren’t done fighting,” he said. “With attacks on our community coming from many directions, including the Supreme Court, we will work to defeat this bill with everything we’ve got.”
Can we still celebrate Fourth of July this year?
Ritchie Torres says he is unlikely to run for NY governor
GenOUT Chorus offers solace, strength to LGBTQ teens
Is it time for DC to have new congressional representation?
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
Spanberger touts equality, reproductive rights in Arlington
Two new books on dining out LGBTQ-style
‘Andy Warhol in Iran’ a charming look at intersection of art, politics
Pragmatic presidents invest in America
