News
Snyder suspends benefits for Michigan same-sex marriages
Governor acknowledges couples legally married, but withholds benefits until stay lifted

Gov. Rick Snyder (R-Mich.) won’t recognize same-sex marriages performed in Michigan (Photo by Major.guy2012; courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
Still, Snyder acknowledged the more than 300 same-sex weddings that took place on Saturday were legally valid.
“After comprehensive legal review of state law and all recent court rulings, we have concluded that same-sex couples were legally married at county clerk offices in the time period between U.S. District Judge [Friedman’s] ruling and the Sixth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporary stay of that ruling,” Snyder said in a statement.
But Snyder continued the state will suspend benefits afforded to the couples “in accordance with the law” until the stay on the weddings from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is lifted.
“Because the stay brings Michigan law on this issue back into effect, the rights tied to these marriages are suspended until the stay is lifted or Judge Friedman’s decision is upheld on appeal,” Snyder said.
Same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses over the weekend in Ingham, Washtenaw, Muskegon and Oakland counties after a district court ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Snyder and Michigan Attorney Bill Schuette appealed the ruling to Sixth Circuit and asked judges to halt the weddings with a stay, which was granted Tuesday.
A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which reportedly had threatened to sue if the Michigan doesn’t recognize the same-sex marriages, said Wednesday the organization is looking at options.
“As a matter of law and fundamental fairness, the state is obligated to extend all the rights and responsibilities that flow from marriage to the more than 300 couples married this weekend,” Rana Elmir said. “Doing anything less violates our laws, treats legally married gay and lesbian couples like second-class citizens, and adds to the confusion and instability these loving families have had to endure. We will continue to explore legal options on behalf of these couples and encourage those who have been denied the benefits of marriage to contact us.”
But Elmir said her organization is pleased that Snyder said the unions are legally valid because that “opens the door” for federal recognition of the marriages. She said the Obama adminstration should “absolutely” recognize the unions because “there is no doubt that these marriages are valid.”
The question still lingers over whether the federal government will recognize the same-sex marriages performed in Michigan. In Utah, when a district court ruling enabled 1,300 same-sex couples to wed before a stay was instituted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Gov. Gary Herbert said his state won’t recognize the unions, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Attorney said they’re valid in the eyes of the Obama administration.
Allison Price, a Justice Department spokesperson, said her earlier comment that the Obama administration is “closely monitoring the situation” still stands as of Wednesday afternoon.
Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Snyder refused to articulate his position on same-sex marriage, saying he’s focused on jobs and the economy.
“I’m not going to go back and rehash a sentence in one debate from four years ago,” Snyder said. “I’ve been focused on jobs, it’s my main message, and I’m staying consistent with that.”
According to Crain’s Detroit Business, Snyder told reporters on Wednesday that his office had to make legal decision on whether the marriages were valid on his own because Schuette didn’t respond to a request to meet.
“We did our own research,” Snyder was quoted as saying. “We believe this is the appropriate position to take.”
Joy Yearout, a Schuette spokesperson, responded to the report to the Washington Blade by saying the governor and the attorney general often speak, but those discussions are kept under wraps.
“The Department of Attorney General and the Governor’s office talk all the time,” Yearout said. “Those conversations are confidential. The Governor’s written statement speaks for itself, and as the Attorney General has said all along, these issues will ultimately be sorted out by the courts, just as they have in other states. The sooner these questions are answered, the better.”
Yearout didn’t respond to a follow-up question on whether she denies Snyder’s comments that Schuette never followed up on a request to meet about the same-sex marriages.
Snyder makes his announcement as his pursues re-election in a 2014 gubernatorial election where Democrat Mark Schauer will be his likely challenger in the general election.
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) was among the Democrats criticizing Snyder for his decision not to recognize the unions in the aftermath of the announcement.
“Today Governor Rick Snyder double downed on ambivalence,” Kildee said. “As a leader, you either support equality for all loving couples or you don’t. It’s that simple. This is not a complicated question. Governor, do you support equality for all Michiganders? Or is that not on your agenda?”
Emily Dievendorf, executive director of the statewide LGBT group, Equality Michigan, also took aims at Snyder, saying she finds his actions “despicable.”
“Equality Michigan finds it despicable that a Governor claiming to stand for families, children, and the economy would side with his out-of-touch Attorney General and continue this wasteful crusade to harm Michigan families,” Dievendorf said. “The DeBoer-Rowse family and their legal team will continue to defend our families in court, and the efforts by people like East Lansing Mayor Nathan Triplett and Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum to get the government to recognize these marriages will not be forgotten. Equality Michigan calls on the Governor to end the second-class treatment of LGBT families in Michigan and the executive branch’s attack on marriage equality.”
CORRECTION: An initial version of this article misspelled Rep. Dan Kildee’s name and said he was criticizing Mark Schauer. The Blade regrets the error.
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
