Federal judge strikes down Michigan's gay marriage ban
By Greg Botelho, CNN
March 21, 2014
(CNN) -- A federal judge on Friday ruled that Michigan's prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, ordering the state to stop enforcing the ban.
"Today's decision ... affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail," U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman wrote.
Michigan is the latest state in which federal judges have struck down state constitutional bans on gay marriage.
Similar rulings recently have been issued in Texas, Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Utah, though in those cases judges have put off enforcement of the decisions until higher courts can weigh in.
Friday's decision is different in that it opens the door for same-sex couples to get marriage licenses in Michigan very soon. Barb Byrum, the elected county clerk for Ingham County and a Democrat, said she is eager and ready to do so once her office opens at 8 a.m. Monday.
"This is a wonderful decision," Byrum said. "Many Michiganders have been waiting for equality in our great state, and I look forward to the opportunity to issue marriage licenses to all loving couples."
That day may not come so fast. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican whose term expires later this year, announced Friday evening he's filed an emergency request for Friedman's order to be stayed and appealed.
"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."
He was referring to the year that voters in Michigan, along with those in 10 other states, passed state constitutional amendments restricting "marriage or (a) similar union" to between one man and one woman.
Whether same-sex couples should be allowed to wed was a hot-button issue then and in subsequent years, with polls showing that most Americans favored restrictions.
But public opinion shifted over time. An ABC News/Washington Post survey released earlier this month found that 59% of Americans favor allowing gay or lesbian couples to legally wed.
Michigan's amendment, specifically, states the rationale for its restrictions is "to secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children."
Friedman -- like federal judges in other recent, similar cases -- ruled Michigan's ban violates the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
He said, "The court finds the (Michigan Marriage Amendment) impermissibly discriminates against same-sex couples in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the provision does not advance any conceivable state interest."
The plaintiffs in the Michigan case, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, sued in part because Michigan law also "restricts adoptions to either single persons or married couples." They had hoped to jointly adopt three children under their care.
Friday's ruling, then, would seem to open the door to same-sex couples jointly adopting children, since now they could be legally married.
In the ruling, Friedman cited the Supreme Court's landmark decisions last June rejecting parts of the Defense of Marriage Act while ruling same-sex spouses legally married in a state may receive federal benefits.
The justices didn't go as far as saying that all states must allow such marriages to take place within their borders, but a number of lower federal courts did subsequently step into the fray.
In addition to United States v. Windsor, Friedman also pointed to Loving v. Virginia -- in which the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's ban on interracial marriages was unconstitutional.
"Both the Windsor and Loving decisions stand for the proposition that, without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence," the judge wrote.
http://us.cnn.com/2014/03/21/justice/mi ... index.html
Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down
-
Gaybutton
- Posts: 23456
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 1551 times
-
Gaybutton
- Posts: 23456
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 1551 times
Re: Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down
Appeals Court Halts Michigan's Same-Sex Marriages
MASON, Mich. - A federal appeals court issued an order Saturday preventing more same-sex couples from getting married in Michigan for at least several more days.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said it issued the stay because it needed more time to consider the state's appeal of a judge's ruling Friday overturning Michigan's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The court said its stay would last until at least Wednesday.
Earlier Saturday, dozens of same-sex couples in at least four Michigan counties wasted no time in getting hitched, uncertain of how the appeals court would act.
On Friday, federal Judge Bernard Friedman overturned Michigan's same-sex marriage ban, the latest in a series of decisions overturning similar laws across the country.
Two Detroit-area nurses who've been partners for eight years claimed the ban violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Nearly 60 percent of state voters in 2004 approved a constitutional amendment that recognizes marriage only as between a man and a woman.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on same-sex marriage have been overturned in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.
The case in Michigan involves two Detroit-area nurses, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer. They want to get married, but the original purpose of their 2012 lawsuit was to overturn Michigan's ban on joint adoptions by same-sex couples.
They are raising three adopted children with special needs at their Hazel Park home. But they can't jointly adopt each other's kids because joint adoption in the state is tied exclusively to marriage.
Rowse, 49, and DeBoer, 42, didn't testify, and the trial had nothing to do with their relationship. In fact, attorneys for the state told the judge that they are great parents.
Instead, the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
But experts testifying for Rowse and DeBoer said there were no differences between the kids of same-sex couples and the children raised by a man and woman. And the University of Texas took the extraordinary step of disavowing the testimony of sociology professor Mark Regnerus, who was a witness for Michigan.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-sa ... als-court/
MASON, Mich. - A federal appeals court issued an order Saturday preventing more same-sex couples from getting married in Michigan for at least several more days.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said it issued the stay because it needed more time to consider the state's appeal of a judge's ruling Friday overturning Michigan's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The court said its stay would last until at least Wednesday.
Earlier Saturday, dozens of same-sex couples in at least four Michigan counties wasted no time in getting hitched, uncertain of how the appeals court would act.
On Friday, federal Judge Bernard Friedman overturned Michigan's same-sex marriage ban, the latest in a series of decisions overturning similar laws across the country.
Two Detroit-area nurses who've been partners for eight years claimed the ban violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Nearly 60 percent of state voters in 2004 approved a constitutional amendment that recognizes marriage only as between a man and a woman.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on same-sex marriage have been overturned in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.
The case in Michigan involves two Detroit-area nurses, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer. They want to get married, but the original purpose of their 2012 lawsuit was to overturn Michigan's ban on joint adoptions by same-sex couples.
They are raising three adopted children with special needs at their Hazel Park home. But they can't jointly adopt each other's kids because joint adoption in the state is tied exclusively to marriage.
Rowse, 49, and DeBoer, 42, didn't testify, and the trial had nothing to do with their relationship. In fact, attorneys for the state told the judge that they are great parents.
Instead, the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
But experts testifying for Rowse and DeBoer said there were no differences between the kids of same-sex couples and the children raised by a man and woman. And the University of Texas took the extraordinary step of disavowing the testimony of sociology professor Mark Regnerus, who was a witness for Michigan.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-sa ... als-court/