Connect with us

Politics

Will Mich. judge make a surprise ruling for marriage equality?

Decision could immediately follow oral arguments this week

Published

on

National LGBT Bar Association, Gay News, Washington Blade

A federal judge in Michigan could issue a surprise ruling on Wednesday in favor of marriage rights for gay couples. (Image via wikimedia).

The national landscape for marriage equality could change abruptly following oral arguments in a Michigan lawsuit on Wednesday if the federal judge presiding over the case issues a decision saying gay couples should be able to wed in the state.

The U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Michigan is set to hear arguments in the case of DeBoer v. Snyder, a lawsuit filed by private attorneys that seeks to overturn the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by Michigan voters in 2004.

Because requests for summary judgment were filed by both the plaintiffs and the state, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman could issue a decision immediately after he hears arguments in the courtroom.

Dana Nessel, one of four private attorneys representing the lesbian plaintiff couple in the lawsuit, said she’s “very hopeful” at the end of arguments Friedman will issue a ruling against the marriage ban in Michigan.

“We don’t know that that’s going to happen, but certainly, we’d be thrilled to have a resolution to this case as early as possible,” Nessel said. “This case has been pending for a very long time, and there are hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands, of LGBT couples in this state that have been awaiting a ruling in this case.”

The case was filed in January 2012 by a lesbian couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, in Hazel Park, Mich., who were seeking a ruling granting them the ability to adopt their three children.

Michigan law has no explicit ban on gay adoption, but restricts adoptions to either single persons or married couples. Meanwhile, the Michigan marriage law restricts the state’s legal definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples. Some judges have interpreted that to mean gay couples can’t adopt because they’re unable to marry.

After Friedman reviewed the case last year, he suggested to the couple that they were actually seeking the right to marry because the right to adopt in the state was tied to marriage. The couple amended their case in March to seek marriage equality in Michigan, while still pursuing their goal of adoption rights, on the basis that the marriage ban violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Jay Kaplan, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Michigan, said the judge may decide to wait beyond the day of oral arguments — perhaps indeterminately — to issue a decision on marriage, and could ultimately avoid the marriage issue altogether in his decision.

“There are many different scenarios that could happen here,” Kaplan said. “The judge could decide maybe just to focus in terms of the right to jointly adopt, and he could say that’s separate from the issue of marriage, or he could decide it’s tied to the issue of marriage and could also then decide to deny the right to marry is unconstitutional in the state of Michigan.”

It’s the first oral arguments in federal court after the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. Presenting the oral arguments on behalf of the plaintiff couple will be private attorney Carole Stanyar. The attorney arguing in favor of the ban will likely be the lead counsel representing the state, Assistant Attorney General Kristin Heyse.

One thing to watch is whether the decision in United States v. Windsor will have bearing on the judge’s questioning or any decision he issues. Although that decision struck down a law prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriage, state courts and attorneys general have already drawn on the language in that decision to determine that state bans on marriage equality are unconstitutional.

Nessel said the decision will be a “tremendous benefit” in efforts to lift the ban on same-sex marriage in Michigan because of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s language in the ruling expressing concern for children raised by gay couples.

“Our feeling was why talk about children being raised in same-sex households in a case that didn’t involve that at all unless Justice Kennedy specifically meant for that to apply to our case, to cases like ours,” Nessel said. “There it is. Right in the Windsor decision where it didn’t have to be. There’s no reason to talk about that unless it was meant to apply to our scenario, and we think it does.”

The ACLU of Michigan, Kaplan said, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case in favor of the plaintiffs along with Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Human Rights Campaign. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA, in December 2012 these groups urged the court to hold off on a decision on the basis that it was more “prudent” to make a decision after receiving guidance from the high court — a request the judge followed.

Another question is whether Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who has side-stepped the issue of same-sex marriage, or Michigan State Attorney General Bill Schuette, who has a reputation for being a conservative, will appeal a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Such an appeal could mean a stay on the ability of county clerks to grant licenses to gay couples despite a ruling in favor of marriage equality.

The Michigan attorney general’s office didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on Schuette’s expectations for the lawsuit or whether he would appeal a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. Joy Yearout, spokeswoman for Schuette, told the Detroit Free Press the state would defend the marriage ban in court, but wouldn’t comment on what would happen if the court ruled in favor of marriage equality.

Kaplan predicted that Schuette would make the appeal to the Sixth Circuit because the attorney general is “no supporter of LGBT equality in our state.”

“He’s indicated that he believes things should be the status quo with regard to relationship recognition the way things exist now in our state,” Kaplan said. “Chances are that he would appeal.”

Oral arguments in the case are taking place in the Michigan lawsuit amid a slew of activities throughout the country on marriage equality following the Supreme Court decision against DOMA and California’s Proposition 8. At least 35 marriage equality lawsuits are pending in 19 states.

Michael Cole-Schwartz, an HRC spokesperson, said a ruling in favor of marriage equality from the Michigan court — even if it were appealed — would be a tremendous boon to the pursuit of marriage equality across the country.

“This is one of many cases that calls into question the irrational exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from marriage and we are hopeful that as momentum builds, these darks walls of discrimination will fall,” Cole-Schwartz said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban

‘Big Beautiful Bill’ now heads to the Senate

Published

on

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael. Key)

The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted 215-214 for passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” reconciliation package, which includes provisions that would prohibit the use of federal funds to support gender-affirming care.

But for an 11th hour revision of the bill late Wednesday night by conservative lawmakers, Medicaid and CHIP would have been restricted only from covering treatments and interventions administered to patients younger than 18.

The legislation would also drop requirements that some health insurers must cover gender-affirming care as an “essential health benefit” and force states that currently mandate such coverage to find it independently. Plans could still offer coverage for transgender care but without the EHB classification patients will likely pay higher out of pocket costs.

To offset the cost of extending tax cuts from 2017 that disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans, the reconciliation bill contains significant cuts to spending for federal programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The Human Rights Campaign criticized House Republicans in a press release and statement by the group’s president, Kelley Robinson:

“People in this country want policies and solutions that make life better and expand access to the American Dream. Instead, anti-equality lawmakers voted to give  handouts to billionaires built on the backs of hardworking people — with devastating consequences for the LGBTQ+ community.

“If the cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP or resources like Planned Parenthood clinics weren’t devastating enough, House Republicans added a last minute provision that expands its attacks on access to best practice health care to transgender adults.

“This cruel addition shows their priorities have never been about lowering costs or expanding health care access–but in targeting people simply for who they are. These lawmakers have abandoned their constituents, and as they head back to their districts, know this: they will hear from us.”

Senate Republicans are expected to pass the bill with the budget reconciliation process, which would allow them to bypass the filibuster and clear the spending package with a simple majority vote.

Changes are expected as the bill will be reviewed and amended by committees, particularly the Finance Committee, and then brought to the floor for debate — though modifications are expected to focus on Medicaid reductions and debate over state and local tax deductions.

Continue Reading

Congress

Gerry Connolly dies at 75 after battle with esophageal cancer

Va. congressman fought for LGBTQ rights

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) speaks at a Barack Obama rally on Oct. 19, 2012. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Democratic U.S. Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia died on Wednesday, according to a statement from his family.

The 75-year-old lawmaker, who served in Congress since 2009, announced last month that he will not seek reelection and would step down from his role as the top Democrat on the powerful U.S. House Oversight Committee because his esophageal cancer had returned.

“We were fortunate to share Gerry with Northern Virginia for nearly 40 years because that was his joy, his purpose, and his passion,” his family said in their statement. “His absence will leave a hole in our hearts, but we are proud that his life’s work will endure for future generations.”

“He looked out for the disadvantaged and voiceless. He always stood up for what is right and just,” they said.

Connolly was memorialized in statements from colleagues and friends including House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), former President Joe Biden, and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

Several highlighted Connolly’s fierce advocacy on behalf of federal workers, who are well represented in his northern Virginia congressional district.

The congressman also supported LGBTQ rights throughout his life and career.

When running for the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in 1994, he fought the removal of Washington Blade newspapers from libraries. When running in 2008 for the U.S. house seat vacated by Tom Davis, a Republican, Connolly campaigned against the amendment to Virginia’s constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state.

In Congress, he supported the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality, the Biden-Harris administration’s rescission of the anti-trans military ban, and the designation within the State Department of a special LGBTQ rights envoy. The congressman also was an original cosponsor of the Equality Act and co-sponsored legislation to repeal parts of the Defense of Marriage Act.


 

Continue Reading

Congress

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances

Judiciary Committee markup slated for Wednesday morning

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)’s “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which would criminalize guideline-directed gender affirming health care for minors, will advance to markup in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.

Doctors and providers who administer medical treatments for gender dysphoria to patients younger than 18, including hormones and puberty blockers, would be subject to Class 3 felony charges punishable by up to 10 years in prison if the legislation is enacted.

LGBTQ advocates warn conservative lawmakers want to go after families who travel out of state to obtain medical care for their transgender kids that is banned or restricted in the places where they reside, using legislation like Greene’s to expand federal jurisdiction over these decisions. They also point to the medically inaccurate way in which the bill characterizes evidence-based interventions delineated in standards of care for trans and gender diverse youth as “mutilation” or “chemical castration.”

Days into his second term, President Donald Trump signed “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” an executive order declaring that the U.S. would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit” medical treatments and interventions intended for this purpose.

Greene, who has introduced the bill in years past, noted the president’s endorsement of her bill during his address to the joint session of Congress in March when he said “I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.”

Continue Reading

Popular