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.”
Federal Government
Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
Andry Hernández Romero had asked for asylum in US
A gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who the U.S. “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador has filed a claim against the federal government.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center, who represents Andry Hernández Romero, on Friday announced their client and five other Venezuelans who the Trump-Vance administration “forcibly removed” to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, filed “administrative claims” under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The White House on Feb. 20, 2025, designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump less than a month later invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The White House then “forcibly removed” Hernández, who had been pursuing his asylum case in the U.S., and more than 250 other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
Hernández was held at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT, until his release on July 18, 2025. Hernández, who is back in Venezuela, claims he suffered physical and sexual abuse while at CECOT.
“As a Venezuelan citizen with no criminal record anywhere in the world, I would like to tell not only the government of the United States but governments everywhere that no human being is illegal,” said Hernández in the Immigrant Defenders Law Center press release. “The practice of judging whole communities for the wrongdoing of a single individual must end. Governments should use their power to help every person in the nation become more aware and informed, to strengthen our cultures and build a stronger generation with principles and values — one that multiplies the positive instead of destroying unfulfilled dreams and opportunities.”
Immigrant Defenders Law Center filed claims on behalf of Hernández and the five other Venezuelans less than three months after American forces seized then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital.
Maduro and Flores have pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges. Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, is Venezuela’s acting president.
‘Due process and accountability cannot be optional’
Immigrant Defenders Law Center on Friday also made the following demands:
- The Trump administration must officially release the names of all people the United States sent to CECOT to ensure that everyone has been or will be released.
- The federal government must clear the names of the 252 men wrongfully labeled as criminal gang members of Tren de Aragua.
- DHS (Department of Homeland Security) must end the practice of outsourcing torture through third‑country removals, restore humanitarian parole, and rebuild a functioning, humane asylum system.
- DHS must reinstate Temporary Protected Status for all individuals who cannot safely return to their home countries, halt mass deportations and unlawful raids and arrests, and guarantee due process for everyone navigating the immigration system.
- Congress must pass the Neighbors Not Enemies Act, which would repeal the Alien Enemies Act.
“In all my years as an immigration attorney, I have never seen a client simply vanish in the middle of their case with no explanation,” said Immigration Defenders Legal Fund Legal Services Director Melissa Shepard. “In court, the government couldn’t even explain where he was — he had been disappeared.”
“When the government detains and transfers people in secrecy, without transparency or access to the courts, it tears at the basic protections a democracy is supposed to guarantee,” added Shepard. “What this experience makes painfully clear is that due process and accountability cannot be optional. They are the only safeguards standing between people and the kind of lawlessness our clients suffered. We must end third country transfers, restore the asylum system, and humanitarian parole, and reinstate temporary protective status so this nightmare never happens again.”
The White House
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.
In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.
“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.
One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.
The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.
However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.
The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”
Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.
According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.
Ecuador
Adolescentes trans en Ecuador podrán cambiar datos en su cédula, pero con condicionamientos
Pueden modificar el campo de género en su documento de identidad con requisitos
Por VICTOR H. CARREÑO | En una sentencia del 5 de febrero de 2026, la Corte Constitucional declaró inconstitucional el requisito legal de mayoría de edad para modificar el campo de sexo o género en la cédula de identidad y fija lineamientos para que adolescentes trans puedan cambiar estos datos.
El máximo organismo de control e interpretación constitucional incorpora dos requerimientos: que la persona adolescente se presente al procedimiento administrativo con sus padres y que informes psicosociales acrediten un grado de madurez.
El fallo resuelve una consulta de constitucionalidad de una unidad judicial que lleva una acción de protección contra el Registro Civil presentada por la familia de un adolescente trans que solicitó, en junio de 2023, modificar el campo de género en la cédula.
La institución se negó porque la Ley Orgánica de Gestión de la Identidad y Datos Civiles establece que la rectificación de sexo o género es un procedimiento para personas mayores de 18 años.
El adolescente, cuya identidad se protege en la sentencia, cuenta con el apoyo de sus padres en su transición, que inició en 2020. En una audiencia, su madre expuso que si bien en el ámbito familiar y en el sistema educativo se respeta la identidad de su hijo, fuera de estos hay situaciones, como en consultas médicas en el Seguro Social, en que debe presentar la cédula de él y quienes la reciben preguntan si es el documento equivocado.
En el desarrollo de la sentencia, la Corte expone por qué el requisito de tener mayoría de edad para acceder a la modificación de datos en la cédula es inconstitucional.
Entre varios motivos, explica que restringe los derechos al libre desarrollo de la personalidad e identidad, que la edad no puede exigirse como “criterio determinante y único” para determinar la madurez de un adolescente, y que la medida puede generar impactos negativos en el bienestar psicológico y emocional.
Por ello, indica que existen mecanismos alternativos como la evaluación individualizada, el acompañamiento técnico y la consideración del contexto familiar.
En ese sentido, la Corte dispone al Registro Civil que debe proceder al cambio de los datos de adolescentes trans cuando acudan acompañades de sus representantes legales y con el respaldo de informes psicosociales.
Estos informes, agrega la sentencia, deben ser de profesionales acreditados o de órganos técnicos públicos competentes que sean considerados por el Registro Civil.
El fallo tiene efectos para este caso y otros similares. A diferencia de otras sentencias, la Corte no ordena una reforma a la legislación.
La organización Silueta X, que difundió el caso en un comunicado el 11 de marzo, calificó el fallo como histórico y explicó que este crea jurisprudencia de cumplimiento obligatorio.
🏳️⚧️🌈Un chico trans de 15 años le dijo al Estado ecuatoriano “yo sé quién soy”. Y la Corte Constitucional le dio la razón. 🏛️✊
Este fallo es nuestro. Es tuyo.
🔗 Lee la comunicado completa en nuestra bio.#DerechosTransEcuador #SiluetaX #CorteConstitucional #AdolescentesTrans pic.twitter.com/aXE4FU9VeS
— Asociación SILUETA 'X' (@SiluetaX) March 11, 2026
Sin embargo, otras organizaciones cuestionan los requisitos. Fundación Pakta indica que si bien la sentencia derriba la barrera etaria de la mayoría de edad, la inclusión de informes psicosociales contradice la tendencia global y regional hacia la despatologización.
Pakta menciona, por ejemplo, la Opinión Consultiva 24/17 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, instrumento que reconoce la identidad autopercebida de las personas y los derechos patrimoniales de parejas del mismo sexo.
El documento, recuerda Pakta en un comunicado, establece que para el reconocimiento de la identidad de género no se debe exigir certificados médicos ni psicológicos. Además, que la Organización Mundial de la Salud reconoció que la identidad trans no es una patología psiquiátrica.
Mientras que la activista Nua Fuentes, de Proyecto Transgénero, considera que los requisitos impuestos por la Corte pueden ser problemáticos. Menciona que frente al desconocimiento y prejuicios, profesionales de salud patologizan la identidad trans.
La Sentencia 4-24-CN/26 sobre la inconstitucionalidad de negar a adolescentes trans cambio de su sexo o género en la cédula es un acto que entreabre la puerta para los derechos, pero también sostiene algunas barreras y es problemático para adolescentes trans #Ecuador
Abro hilo🧵 pic.twitter.com/aKBUlmnU1A— Nua Elizabeth Fuentes Aguirre (@NuaEliz) March 11, 2026
Además, señala que puede haber casos de que la familia y psicólogos expresen rechazo a la identidad trans y limiten los derechos de adolescentes trans. O también menciona casos de abandono de niñes y adolescentes trans y pregunta cómo reconocer su identidad si no cumplen con el requisito de acudir sin representantes legales.
Los condicionamientos para el cambio del campo de sexo o género en la cédula para adolescentes trans marcan también una diferencia con el procedimiento en personas trans de más de 18 años, pues estas —desde las reformas vigentes en 2024— no deben presentar requisitos. Solo su declaración expresa de ser una persona trans que desea que los datos de su cédula estén conformes a su identidad de género.
La madurez de niñeces y adolescencias ha sido un tema abordado en convenciones o instrumentos internacionales. La Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño de la ONU del 2009 es contundente al reconocerles como seres autónomos y capaces de formar sus propias opiniones a través de la experiencia, el entorno, las expectativas sociales y culturales.
Esta convención es mencionada en una sentencia de la Corte Constitucional en que reconoció la identidad de infancias y adolescencias trans en el sistema educativo.
En las Observaciones Generales del Comité de los Derechos del Niño, documentos de interpretación para los alcances de la mencionada Convención, se explica que la madurez es “la capacidad de comprender y evaluar las consecuencias de un asunto determinado”, lo cual debe considerarse en relación con su capacidad individual, contextos, entornos, experiencias de vida y familiar, desarrollo psicológico y no únicamente con su edad biológica.
Además, que la edad cronológica no determina la evolución de las capacidades de las niñeces y adolescencias porque estas crecen a lo largo del tiempo.
Gay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Adolescentes trans en Ecuador podrán cambiar datos en su cédula, pero con condicionamientos
Gay Cameroonian immigrant will be freed from ICE detention — for now
Laverne Cox, Liza Minnelli among authors with new books
Claudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
Man stuck in Lebanon as Iran war escalates
CAMP Rehoboth hires new executive director
