News
Will the 6th Circuit allow Michigan marriages to continue?
Weddings halted until at least Wednesday, but no decision on stay pending appeal
The Sixth Circuit will consider whether to stay marriages in Michigan this week. (Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
Marriage equality advocates are watching the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this week as it decides whether to stay same-sex weddings in Michigan or allow them to continue as the court considers marriage equality litigation.
Experts say the Sixth Circuit — and the Supreme Court if the stay request is appealed — have room to allow the Michigan same-sex weddings to continue because the Supreme Court’s stay on weddings following a similar ruling in Utah isn’t controlling and many district courts have now ruled in favor of marriage equality.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, was among those saying he doesn’t believe a stay is warranted in the case, known as DeBoer v. Snyder.
“The Supreme Court did not explain the reasons for its stay in the Utah case, so it provides little guidance and certainly should not be construed as requiring stays in other cases,” Minter said. “Utah was the first federal court in the country to strike down a state marriage ban post-Windsor, but many others have since followed suit, so the legal landscape is already quite different than when the Supreme Court issued a stay in that case.”
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, a Reagan appointee, issued the ruling striking down Michigan’s 2004 constitutional ban on same-sex marriages on Friday, but unlike similar rulings against laws in Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma, Friedman didn’t include a stay in his ruling.
Vickie Henry, a senior staff attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who helped plaintiffs for the Michigan trial, said the lack of a stay from the judge came as no surprise given the concern he stated in his ruling for children raised by same-sex couples.
“At this point, all the recent decisions have all come out the same way,” Henry said. “So at some point I think you recognize there’s a high human cost, a high people cost, in the denial of these rights. I can’t speculate what he was thinking, but that seems like a great reason to not enter a stay.”
But Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a stay request before the Sixth Circuit to halt the same-sex marriages in Michigan as he and Gov. Rick Snyder filed notice they would file an appeal to the court.
After allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to the stay request by Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on the same-sex weddings until at least Wednesday — but only after an estimated 315 gay couples received marriage licenses on Saturday.
A similar situation has happened before just recently. After U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah’s marriage ban in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert, Gov. Gary Herbert sought a stay request from the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court denied the stay, but the Supreme Court later instituted it after U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor referred the matter to the entire bench.
Henry said she thinks the same outcome won’t necessarily befall Michigan despite the stay from the Supreme Court in the Utah case.
“It’s not directly controlling,” Henry said. “In other words, the Sixth Circuit’s not bound by it, but it’s certainly suggestive to the court of what at least one member of the Supreme Court would want them to do.”
Equality Michigan is circulating a petition calling on Snyder and Schuette to drop their appeal of the ruling. As of Monday afternoon, the petition had more than 10,000 signatures.
“We must end the second-class treatment of LGBT families in Michigan,” the petition states. “Rather than siding with the people of Michigan, Schuette and Snyder are wasting taxpayer dollars defending a ban on marriage equality that harms Michigan families — and that the people of Michigan no longer even want.”
But now that the Michigan case has been appealed, all four states in the Sixth Circuit — Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky — have marriage equality cases before the appeals court.
The Sixth Circuit has ruled on an LGBT-relevant case before, but the outcome and the precedent it set wasn’t favorable to LGBT people.
In the case of Equality Federation v. Cincinnati, the court in 1996 upheld an anti-gay ordinance in Cincinnati forbidding the city from enforcing civil rights ordinances based on sexual orientation. The judges issued this decision despite the Supreme Court ruling in 1992 in Romer v. Evans, which found that a similar measure, Colorado’s Amendment 2, was unconstitutional.
But the Cincinnati ordinance has since been repealed in 2004, and that ruling was delivered years ago before the Supreme Court issued precedent protecting gay people in Lawrence and Windsor.
If the Sixth Circuit denies a stay, state officials could appeal the stay request to the Supreme Court justice responsible for stays in the Sixth Circuit: U.S. Associate Justice Elena Kagan. In that event, Kagan could refer the request to the entire court. If she declines a stay on her own, the state could ask any justice on the court for a stay, including anti-gay U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, expressed uncertainty about whether the Supreme Court would take similar action as it did with the Utah same-sex marriages.
“The Supreme Court did not explain why they issued the stay in Kitchen previously, however, so there is no way of knowing for sure what motivated them to do that or whether a majority of them would do the same thing in the face of the tidal wave of decisions in favor of marriage equality that we are seeing in the lower courts,” Davidson said.
Not all legal experts foresee a possibility in which neither the Sixth Circuit nor the Supreme Court would refuse to grant a stay on same-sex weddings.
Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, predicted the Supreme Court would continue to issue stays on same-sex marriages throughout the country until it delivers it final determination on same-sex marriage.
“My view is that the Supreme Court will continue to grant stays until they resolve a case on the merits,” Hunter said. “Earliest that is likely to happen is June 2015.”
In the event a stay is granted by either the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court, another question would emerge similar to the situation in Utah: Would the federal government and state of Michigan recognize the same-sex marriages already conducted in the state?
In Utah, the decision was split. Herbert announced that his state wouldn’t recognize the estimated 1,300 same-sex marriages conducted in Utah pending the final outcome of the litigation. But U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration would consider those marriages valid for the purposes of federal benefits. Several state attorneys general, including Maryland’s Doug Gansler, announced their states would also recognize the marriages.
According to the Associated Press, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is holding off on the determination on whether his state will recognize the unions. His spokesperson is quoted as saying the governor will wait for a stay decision to be reached before deciding whether Michigan will recognize the marriages.
Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum and East Lansing Mayor Nathan Triplett, who performed same-sex marriages in Michigan over the weekend, sent a letter Monday to Holder insisting the federal government should recognize those unions.
“Many of the couples that were married on March 22 waited decades for that opportunity,” Byrum and Triplett write. “Their marriages complied with Judge Friedman’s order and all relevant provisions of Michigan law and should be recognized as such by state and federal authorities without delay.”
The Justice Department didn’t yet have a definitive answer in response to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on whether the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages performed in Michigan.
“We are closely monitoring the situation,” said Allison Price, a Justice Department spokesperson.
District of Columbia
‘Queer Love’ campaign launched to address domestic violence
D.C. event set for LGBTQ+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day on May 28
The D.C.-based Wanda Alston Foundation, which provides housing and support services for homeless LGBTQ youth, announced earlier this month that it has joined partner organizations to launch a Queer Love Shouldn’t Hurt campaign aimed at addressing domestic violence within the LGBTQ community.
In a May 18 statement, the Alston Foundation said the campaign involves a public awareness initiative leading up to LGBTQ+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day scheduled for May 28.
“Domestic and family violence in LGBTQ+ communities is real and too often invisible,” Cesar Toledo, the Alston Foundation’s executive director, said in the statement. “As a community, we do not talk about it enough, and that silence can leave survivors feeling isolated and alone,” he said. “We must break that silence.”
He added that culturally competent care for those impacted by domestic violence is available through a newly launched website, queerlove.org, “where people can safely access vital resources, educational toolkits, and support networks they need on their healing journey.”
The website announces one of the project’s first events, a Queer Love Community Social, was scheduled for Thursday, May 28, from 6-8 p.m. at the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center at 1827 Wiltberger St., N.W.
“Join us this LGBT+ Domestic Violence Awareness Day for a community social dedicated to visibility and survivor resilience,” the website statement says. “Let’s gather to strengthen our bonds, honor the path to healing, and share free resources,” it says of the May 28 event.
The website also announces a June 1 workshop called Empowering Survivors of LGBTQ+ Intimate Partner Violence, which it says will be presented by Jesse Wedell, an official with the D.C. LGBT+ Counseling Collaborative. The website provides an online form to register for the workshop upon which its location would be disclosed.
It identifies the partner organizations working with the Alston Foundation on the Queer Love Public Awareness Campaign as the LGBT+ Counseling Collaborative, Whitman-Walker Health, the D.C. LGBTQ+ Community Center, and Equality Chamber.
The resources and information provided by the project can be accessed at www.queerlove.org.
2026 Midterm Elections
Ken Paxton wins Texas Republican primary runoff
LGBTQ rights opponent will face Democrat James Talarico in November
Attorney General Ken Paxton won the Republican Senate primary in Texas on Tuesday, ousting incumbent U.S. Sen. John Cornyn.
Paxton won the primary against the four-term incumbent in large part due to President Donald Trump’s endorsement. Despite Cornyn voting with Trump more than 90 percent of the time, political insiders say being supportive isn’t enough to win Trump’s endorsement anymore — Republican candidates need to embrace the full MAGA image, something Paxton has done.
Paxton has served as Texas attorney general since 2015 and, before that, worked as a Texas state representative. He has approached both roles with what LGBTQ activists call a “consistently Anti-LGBTQ+ Record.” Following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — the case that made same-sex marriage the law of the land — Paxton advised Texas county clerks they could refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds.
His anti-LGBTQ crusade doesn’t stop at fighting against marriage equality.
Paxton has repeatedly demanded medical records for transgender youth in multiple states — including Texas, Georgia, and Washington — in hopes of making the practice illegal. His anti-trans actions go far past medical records. Paxton issued an opinion barring trans Texans from changing the sex on their driver’s licenses and birth certificates, claiming any changes made were “unlawfully altered,” and helped the DOJ reach an agreement with a Texas’s children’s hospital for providing minors gender-affirming care, eventually leading to a 10 million dollar settlement. He also authored a non-legally binding opinion equating gender-affirming healthcare for youth to child abuse.
In addition to his long history of anti-LGBTQ policy in the Lone Star State, Paxton is no stranger to controversy.
Multiple impeachment efforts brought against him in the state House of Representatives for “abuse of office” — with the state Senate later acquitting him — allegations that he used his office to assist large campaign donors, namely Nate Paul, and a widely publicized separation from his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, all impacted his run for the U.S. Senate seat — but not enough to keep him from the office.
Lynne Bowman, vice president of campaigns at the Human Rights Campaign, issued a statement following the announcement of Paxton’s primary win.
“Texans have a clear choice this fall, and an opportunity to reject failed policies that hurt all families,” Bowman sent to the Blade via email. “Ken Paxton is so out of step that he has fought to undercut marriage equality and spent time demanding personal medical records for young people who do not even live in Texas, all while becoming the most corrupt politician in America. The more than 2 million Equality Voters in Texas will send him packing.”
Paxton will face off against Democratic hopeful and vocal Trump critic James Talarico in the fall.
Talarico, who won the Democratic primary in April against Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights, citing his ministry work as the source of his support for the community.
The race for Texas’s Senate seat will be decided on Nov. 3.
China
China’s top court acknowledges anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Postgraduate student petitioned for legal clarification
China’s Supreme People’s Court on May 8 issued a rare response to a petition involving LGBTQ discrimination.
In a surprising response; it discussed sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The response also mentioned workplace discrimination, public humiliation, and school bullying, language considered uncommon from China’s legal system.
The response stemmed from a proposal submitted by a postgraduate student in Qingdao through China’s xinfang petition system on March 25, urging the court to establish clearer judicial standards against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Six weeks later, the Supreme People’s Court Research Office issued a written reply.
The Research Office is an internal legal and policy body within the Supreme People’s Court. It studies legal issues, drafts judicial guidance, and responds to legal inquiries submitted through official channels. Its responses do not carry the same legal weight as a judicial interpretation or court ruling.
“The opinions and suggestions you raised are of great value,” reads a translated version of the Supreme People’s Court Research Office response. “In order to thoroughly implement the Constitution, Civil Code, Employment Promotion Law and other legal provisions, and effectively protect citizens’ personality rights from infringement, the Supreme People’s Court has guided local courts at all levels to handle a number of related cases, and through typical cases and other forms has clarified adjudication rules.”
The response stated that courts may determine public insults, defamation and, discriminatory conduct targeting sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as infringement of personality rights. It also said employers treating individuals differently in hiring, employment, transfer or dismissal based on those characteristics could face employment discrimination claims. Schools could also bear legal responsibility for improper discipline or bullying involving students based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, according to the response.
“It’s not a systematic change from the authorities recognizing LGBTQ rights,” said Renn Hao, an LGBTQ activist in China. “However, it’s an informal statement from the Supreme Court. According to a scholar researching LGBTQ legal cases in China, courts are recognizing more cases involving LGBTQ discrimination and same-sex partners through their verdicts.”
China decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in 1997 and removed homosexuality from the country’s list of mental disorders four years later. Chinese law, however, does not recognize same-sex relationships.
Public advocacy involving LGBTQ issues also remains tightly controlled. Authorities in recent years have continued restricting community organizing, public events, and online expression involving sexual minorities.
Discussions involving LGBTQ issues are also frequently censored on Chinese social media platforms.
Activists and advocacy groups say Chinese authorities in recent years have removed online content, shut down LGBTQ student group accounts and restricted public discussion involving sexual minority issues. After the Supreme People’s Court response began circulating online, related posts and articles were also removed from some Chinese platforms.
“It may still be too early to fully assess the long-term impact, as this development has only just happened and the situation is still unfolding,” said Xiaogang Wei, a Beijing-based LGBTQ rights activist, filmmaker, and founder of the China Rainbow Collective Foundation. “Although the reply is not legally binding, it represents a rare form of institutional acknowledgment of SOGIE-related discrimination in China. For Chinese LGBTQ people and advocates, this could become a meaningful reference point for future legal advocacy, public communication, and community awareness.”
Wei said the rapid removal of related posts and articles limited the development’s broader public impact and underscored how fragile LGBTQ visibility remains in China.
“This is why we believe it is important to continue sharing verified information and ensuring that this development is not erased from public understanding,” Wei said.
Chinese courts in recent years have also heard a number of LGBTQ-related employment discrimination cases, despite the absence of explicit nationwide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In one notable case, the Supreme People’s Court in 2018 formally recognized “equal employment rights disputes” as a legal cause of action, allowing some discrimination-related cases to proceed through the courts.
Chinese courts have previously handled several LGBTQ-related disputes involving employment discrimination, custody, and so-called conversion therapy. In 2024, a Beijing court drew attention after recognizing visitation rights for a child involving a same sex couple, a decision activists described as a milestone for LGBTQ families in China.
‘How to Survive a Plague’ screens June 5
‘Queer Love’ campaign launched to address domestic violence
Ken Paxton wins Texas Republican primary runoff
China’s top court acknowledges anti-LGBTQ discrimination
