News
Court strikes down Michigan marriage ban
Judge delivers ruling following two-week trial on prohibition of gay nuptials

April DeBoer (on left) and Jayne Rowse filed the lawsuit against Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage (Washington Blade file photo by Chris Johnson).
A federal court in Michigan made the latest in a series of rulings in favor of marriage equality by striking down the Wolverine State’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
In a 31-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, a Reagan appointee, ruled on Friday the state’s prohibition on gay nuptials violated the equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“After reviewing the evidence presented at the trial, including the testimony of various expert witnesses, the exhibits, and stipulations, and after considering all of the legal issues involved, the Court concludes that the MMA is unconstitutional and will enjoin its enforcement,” Friedman writes.
Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, known as Michigan Proposal 04-2, was approved as part of the state constitution by 59 percent of Michigan voters in 2004.
Friedman devotes a considerable portion of his decision to the ban’s impact on same-sex couples and the children they raise, drawing on language used by U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in his ruling against the Defense of Marriage Act.
“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to ‘the will of the people,’ state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people,” Friedman writes. “No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples.”
Nowhere does the ruling mention a stay on the decision. Rana Elmire, a spokesperson for the ACLU of Michigan, said her organization believes same-sex couples can marry immediately in the state.
Although Elmire initially said clerks’ offices are reopening to marry couples in the wake of the ruling, the ACLU of Michigan later tweeted that it can’t confirm reports that clerks offices are re-opening
Two of the clerk’s offices for the more populous counties in Michigan — Washtenaw and Oakland — were already closed when the ruling was handed down and had no one answering calls when the Blade contacted them to see if they would reopen. Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum, was present when the ruling was handed down, but said her office would remain closed until Monday at 8 am.
But according to a tweet from Gongwer News Service, the Washtenaw County clerk’s office will be open at 9 am on Saturday to distribute marriage licenses.
Washtenaw County Clerk to open between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. Saturday to offer marriage licenses in wake of #gaymarriage ruling.
— Gongwer News Service (@GongwerMichigan) March 22, 2014
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, also said he believes same-sex couples can marry at once in Michigan — as long as clerk’s offices are open.
“I am not sure if any city halls or clerk’s offices are open over the weekend, but if so, then marriages could take place immediately,” Minter said.
Michigan has a three-day waiting period after obtaining a license and being able to wed, but that waiting period can be waived for an additional fee that varies between county to county.
Now that the district has ruled against the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, state officials — Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette, who have been defending the law in court — have the option to appeal to the decision to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Immediately after the ruling, Schuette filed a notice of appeal with the court, saying he and Snyder “hereby appeal” the case to the appellate court. All four states within the Sixth Circuit — Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky — now have marriage equality cases before the appeals court.
Schuette said in a statement after the ruling that he has filed an emergency request for a stay and an appeal of the decision. Both were filed before the Sixth Circuit late Friday.
“In 2004 the citizens of Michigan recognized that diversity in parenting is best for kids and families because moms and dads are not interchangeable,” Schuette said. “Michigan voters enshrined that decision in our State constitution, and their will should stand and be respected. I will continue to carry out my duty to protect and defend the Constitution.”
The ruling is the latest in a string of decisions from federal courts against bans on same-sex marriage in states such as Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia and Texas following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision against the Defense of Marriage Act. According to Lambda Legal, the decision is the 14th decision in a row from a court striking down a state ban on same-sex marriage after the DOMA decision.
But the decision in Michigan case is the first of the post-DOMA decisions handed down after a trial.
For two weeks, Friedman heard testimony from trial from various witnesses on the constitutionality of Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage. Among the witnesses the state presented was Mark Regenrus, the author of a widely discredited study denigrating parenting by same-sex couples.
As Think Progress notes, on the witness stand, Regnerus admitted on the witness that he doesn’t know whether excluding same-sex couples from marriage has any impact on the children they raise.
Friedman criticizes the testimony from Regnerus during the trial, saying the court finds his study “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.”
“Whatever Regnerus may have found in this ‘study,’ he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples,” Friedman writes. “It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in general and reaffirmed the aforementioned APA position statement.”
The case, DeBoer v. Snyder, was filed by private attorneys in January 2012 on behalf of April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a lesbian couple in Hazel Park, Mich., who were seeking the ability to jointly adopt their three children. The couple amended their case early last year to seek marriage equality in Michigan, while still pursuing their goal of adoption rights.
As recorded by local TV affiliate WXYZ, DeBoer and Rowze embraced each other and their children with joy after one of their attorneys, Dana Nessel, read aloud the ruling to them.
LGBT advocates praised Friedman for striking down the ban on same-sex marriage and said it’s evidence a nationwide ruling in favor of marriage equality is within reach.
Jay Kaplan, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, said the lawsuit at its core was about “protecting Michigan families.”
“We are thrilled that the court found that there is no reason to deny loving, committed same-sex couples and their families the protections that come with marriage,” Kaplan said. “By doing so, the court has underscored the American value that freedom is for everyone.”
Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said the win for same-sex couples in Michigan comes after opponents couldn’t identify a single reason why they shouldn’t be able to marry.
“Today’s win comes after a full trial — complete with prosecutors and defendants, witness cross-examinations, and testimony from family experts on the well-being of children — which showed that opponents have nothing more than the same bogus claims they have recycled for decades,” Wolfson said. “They were simply unable to provide a single legitimate reason why committed same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage. Michigan, like all of America, is ready for the freedom to marry.”
District of Columbia
D.C. police arrest man for burglary at gay bar Spark Social House
Suspect ID’d from images captured by Spark Social House security cameras
D.C. police on Feb. 18 arrested a 63-year-old man “of no fixed address” for allegedly stealing cash from the registers at the gay bar Spark Social House after unlawfully entering the bar at 2009 14th St., N.W., around 12:04 a.m. after it had closed for business, according to a police incident report.
“Later that day officers canvassing for the suspect located him nearby,” a separate police statement says. “63-year-old Tony Jones of no fixed address was arrested and charged with Burglary II,” the statement says.
The police incident report states that the bar’s owner, Nick Tsusaki, told police investigators that the bar’s security cameras captured the image of a man who has frequently visited the bar and was believed to be homeless.
“Once inside, the defendant was observed via the establishment’s security cameras opening the cash register, removing U.S. currency, and placing the currency into the left front pocket of his jacket,” the report says.
Tsusaki told the Washington Blade that he and Spark’s employees have allowed Jones to enter the bar many times since it opened last year to use the bathroom in a gesture of compassion knowing he was homeless. Tsusaki said he is not aware of Jones ever having purchased anything during his visits.
According to Tsusaki, Spark closed for business at around 10:30 p.m. on the night of the incident at which time an employee did not properly lock the front entrance door. He said no employees or customers were present when the security cameras show Jones entering Spark through the front door around 12:04 a.m.
Tsusaki said the security camera images show Jones had been inside Spark for about three hours on the night of the burglary and show him taking cash out of two cash registers. He took a total of $300, Tsusaki said.
When Tsusaki and Spark employees arrived at the bar later in the day and discovered the cash was missing from the registers they immediately called police, Tsusaki told the Blade. Knowing that Jones often hung out along the 2000 block of 14th Street where Spark is located, Tsusaki said he went outside to look for him and saw him across the street and pointed Jones out to police, who then placed him under arrest.
A police arrest affidavit filed in court states that at the time they arrested him police found the stolen cash inside the pocket of the jacket Jones was wearing. It says after taking him into police custody officers found a powdered substance in a Ziploc bag also in Jones’s possession that tested positive for cocaine, resulting in him being charged with cocaine possession in addition to the burglary charge.
D.C. Superior Court records show a judge ordered Jones held in preventive detention at a Feb. 19 presentment hearing. The judge then scheduled a preliminary hearing for the case on Feb. 20, the outcome of which couldn’t immediately be obtained.
District of Columbia
Judge rescinds order against activist in Capital Pride lawsuit
Darren Pasha accused of stalking organization staff, board members, volunteers
A D.C. Superior Court judge on Feb.18 agreed to rescind his earlier ruling declaring local gay activist Darren Pasha in default for failing to attend a virtual court hearing regarding an anti-stalking lawsuit brought against him by the Capital Pride Alliance, the group that organizes D.C.’s annual Pride events.
The Capital Pride lawsuit, initially filed on Oct. 27, 2025, accuses Pasha of engaging in a year-long “course of conduct” of “harassment, intimidation, threats, manipulation, and coercive behavior” targeting Capital Pride staff, board members, and volunteers.
In his own court filings without retaining an attorney, Pasha has strongly denied the stalking related allegations against him, saying “no credible or admissible evidence has been provided” to show he engaged in any wrongdoing.
Judge Robert D. Okum nevertheless on Feb. 6 approved a temporary stay-away order requiring Pasha to stay at least 100 feet away from Capital Pride’s staff, volunteers, and board members until the time of a follow-up court hearing scheduled for April 17. He reduced the stay-away distance from 200 yards as requested by Capital Pride.
In his two-page order issued on Feb. 18, Okun stated that Pasha explained that he was involved in a scooter accident in which he was injured and his phone was damaged, preventing him from joining the Feb. 6 court hearing.
“Therefore, the court finds there is a good cause for vacating the default,” Okun states in his order.
At the time he initially approved the default order at the Feb. 6 hearing that Pasha didn’t attend, Okun scheduled an April 17 ex parte proof hearing in which Capital Pride could have requested a ruling in its favor seeking a permanent anti-stalking order against Pasha.
In his Feb. 18 ruling rescinding the default order Okun changed the April 17 ex parte proof hearing to an initial scheduling conference hearing in which a decision on the outcome of the case is not likely to happen.
In addition, he agreed to consider Pasha’s call for a jury trial and gave Capital Pride 14 days to contest that request. The Capital Pride lawsuit initially called for a non-jury trial by judge.
One request by Pasha that Okum denied was a call for him to order Capital Pride to stop its staff or volunteers from posting information about the lawsuit on social media. Pasha has said the D.C.-based online blog called DC Homos, which Pasha claims is operated by someone associated with Capital Pride, has been posting articles portraying him in a negative light and subjecting him to highly negative publicity.
“The defendant has not set forth a sufficient basis for the court to restrict the plaintiff’s social media postings, and the court therefore will deny the defendant’s request in his social media praecipe,” Okun states in his order.
A praecipe is a formal written document requesting action by a court.
Pasha called the order a positive development in his favor. He said he plans to file another motion with more information about what he calls the unfair and defamatory reports about him related to the lawsuit by DC Homos, with a call for the judge to reverse his decision not to order Capital Pride to stop social media postings about the lawsuit.
Pasha points to a video interview on the LGBTQ Team Rayceen broadcast, a link to which he sent to the Washington Blade, in which DC Homos operator Jose Romero acknowledged his association with Capital Pride Alliance.
Capital Pride Executive Director Ryan Bos didn’t immediately respond to a message from the Blade asking whether Romero was a volunteer or employee with Capital Pride.
Pasha also said he believes the latest order has the effect of rescinding the temporary stay away order against him approved by Okun in his earlier ruling, even though Okun makes no mention of the stay away order in his latest ruling. Capital Pride attorney Nick Harrison told the Blade the stay away order “remains in full force and effect.”
Harrison said Capital Pride has no further comment on the lawsuit.
District of Columbia
Trans activists arrested outside HHS headquarters in D.C.
Protesters demonstrated directive against gender-affirming care
Authorities on Tuesday arrested 24 activists outside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in D.C.
The Gender Liberation Movement, a national organization that uses direct action, media engagement, and policy advocacy to defend bodily autonomy and self-determination, organized the protest in which more than 50 activists participated. Organizers said the action was a response to changes in federal policy mandated by Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”
The order directs federal agencies and programs to work toward “significantly limiting youth access to gender-affirming care nationwide,” according to KFF, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that provides independent, fact-based information on national health issues. The executive order also includes claims about gender-affirming care and transgender youth that critics have described as misinformation.
Members of ACT UP NY and ACT UP Pittsburgh also participated in the demonstration, which took place on the final day of the public comment period for proposed federal rules that would restrict access to gender-affirming care.
Demonstrators blocked the building’s main entrance, holding a banner reading “HANDS OFF OUR ‘MONES,” while chanting, “HHS—RFK—TRANS YOUTH ARE NO DEBATE” and “NO HATE—NO FEAR—TRANS YOUTH ARE WELCOME HERE.”
“We want trans youth and their loving families to know that we see them, we cherish them, and we won’t let these attacks go on without a fight,” said GLM co-founder Raquel Willis. “We also want all Americans to understand that Trump, RFK, and their HHS won’t stop at trying to block care for trans youth — they’re coming for trans adults, for those who need treatment from insulin to SSRIs, and all those already failed by a broken health insurance system.”
“It is shameful and intentional that this administration is pitting communities against one another by weaponizing Medicaid funding to strip care from trans youth. This has nothing to do with protecting health and everything to do with political distraction,” added GLM co-founder Eliel Cruz. “They are targeting young people to deflect from their failure to deliver for working families across the country. Instead of restricting care, we should be expanding it. Healthcare is a human right, and it must be accessible to every person — without cost or exception.”

Despite HHS’s efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for trans youth, major medical associations — including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society — continue to regard such care as evidence-based treatment. Gender-affirming care can include psychotherapy, social support, and, when clinically appropriate, puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
The protest comes amid broader shifts in access to care nationwide.
NYU Langone Health recently announced it will stop providing transition-related medical care to minors and will no longer accept new patients into its Transgender Youth Health Program following President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order targeting trans healthcare.
