Gay Rights or Voter Rights? Federal Judge Could Rule on Michigan Same-Sex Marriage Ban Today

A federal judge who heard nine days of often stormy testimony in Michigan’s same-sex marriage trial, could rule as early as today whether to uphold the state’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage backed by 2.7 million voters a decade ago.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said on March 7, the last day of testimony, the ruling would take “a lot of time” because both sides presented disparate arguments. At the time, he expected to issue a written decision within two weeks.

The trial was prompted by a lawsuit filed by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two nurses from Hazel Park who have been together for a decade, but were prohibited from jointly adopting children because they didn’t have a legal marriage. Rowse has two adopted children and DeBoer has one, but without the protection of marriage, they feared that in the event of either of their deaths, the surviving parent might not get custody of all three children, MLive said.

Even if Friedman rules in their favor, they may not be able to marry immediately, as the state has has requested a stay pending an appeal.

It’s a thorny issue for sure.

The state argued the right to adopt a child is not a fundamental constitutional right, but a statutory privilege; that voters had a rational basis for the voter-backed same-sex marriage ban in 2004.

"Plaintiffs failed to prove that there is no rational basis for (1) providing children with 'biologically connected' role models of both genders that are necessary to foster healthy psychological development; (2) forestalling the unintended consequences that would result from the redefinition of marriage; (3) tradition and morality of retaining the definition of marriage and (4) promoting the transition of 'naturally procreative relationships into stable unions,'" state attorneys wrote in a set of proposed conclusions they want the judge reach.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs want the judge to find that the ban continues a history of discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual Michigan residents; that it violates the Constitution; that marriage is  civil contract with "political, economic, legal and personal components”; that Michigan’s marriage and adoption laws discriminate are harmful to gay couples; and that the ban doesn’t advance any state interests.

"There is no rational basis for the assertion that children need 'biologically connected' role models of both genders," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in their proposed conclusions.

"The assertion is a negative assumption about same-sex couples without basis in reality ... Even if, counter-factually, there were a difference in outcomes, the State does not exclude from marriage those who belong to groups that have been documented to be less likely to raise well-adjusted children; for this reason, too, there is no rational basis for the MMA (Michigan Marriage Act)."

DISCUSS: How do you think the judge should rule after hearing arguments on both sides in Michigan's gay marriage trial?