April and Jayne just wanted to jointly adopt three special needs children they were foster parenting, providing the kids with the legal protection of both parents.
Yet they discovered many Michigan judges discriminate against LGBT couples, interpreting the state's adoption law to mean only married couples can adopt together. April and Jayne filed a federal lawsuit, DeBoer v. Snyder, challenging the State’s refusal to allow them to legally marry and be parents to their children .

For the last two weeks, the State of Michigan has been in court to defending this discriminatory policy in court, presenting witnesses who used flawed science to attempt to justify discrimination. 

As closing arguments take place, here's a quick summary of the witnesses for and against marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses

Michael Rosenfeld, a sociology professor at Stanford University, testified about a study he had conducted which indicated that there was no significant difference between the educational outcomes of children from same-sex headed families and those of heterosexual parents.

Rosenfeld also argued that if one were to follow the logic that same-sex couples should be prevented from raising families because of any statistical potential for worse outcomes, one must also conclude that couples who experience poverty, reside in urban areas, or lack higher education should also be barred from parenting.

David Brodzinsky, a psychologist and nationally recognized expert on adoption, preemptively testified in court that the several studies that State experts would present, which conclude that children of same-sex parents are less likely to achieve positive outcomes, are seriously flawed because they neglect to take into account an array of factors which considerably affect child outcomes. Additionally, Brodzinsky maintained that it is the quality of parenting is paramount, and not the gender of the parents.

Vivek Sankaran, a law professor at the University of Michigan and director of the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy, explained that despite LGBT individuals’ ability to designate custody in the event of their death, there is actually no legal guarantee that the guardianship would be upheld by a court.

Additionally, Sankaran explained that there is a significant need for same-sex couples to adopt and foster the 14,000 children who are currently part of Michigan’s foster care system.

Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute, informed the court about the national and statewide prevalence of both LGBT individuals and families. Gates also contended that LGBT couples and families would benefit economically from the institution of marriage.

Nancy Cott, a history professor at Harvard University, testified about the historic and legal requirements for marriage. She noted that marriage has never required a couple’s ability and commitment to procreation. If this was or ever had been a requirement for marriage, Cott contended that neither the elderly nor those who experience sterility would be eligible for marriage. Cott also compared the current bans on same-sex marriage to anti-miscegenation laws, which were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967.

Lisa Brown, Oakland County Clerk, explained her opposition to the State’s stance. Though she is an official of the state, Brown testified that she believes Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage is discriminatory and plans on issuing marriage licenses if the judge rules in the favor of the plaintiffs, rather than following orders from the Attorney General who had emailed her, along with the other 82 County Clerks, in October demanding that they did not issue marriage licenses had Judge Friedman ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

George Chauncey, a history and American studies professor at Harvard University, was unable to testify in court but sent a report instead. The report outlined the history of discrimination, hostility, and violence against the LGBT community. It also summarized the historic and current legal policies which enforce this wholesale discrimination.

Defendants' Witnesses

Loren Marks, a family studies professor at Louisiana State University, denounced the American Psychological Association’s study which concluded that there was no difference between families headed by same-sex and opposite-sex parents. He contended the study was flawed because its sample size was too small, but conceded that it would be extremely difficult to find a more substantial sample. He also admitted, during cross-examination, that he was “neutral” on whether there was a difference in child outcomes between the two groups of families.

Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, testified that his research had shown that children of same-sex parents experienced many more issues in later life, including poverty and drug use. However, Regnerus’ study, prior to this case, had already come under academic fire for its flaws, and was publicly denounced by the University of Texas at Austin on its website the day of his testimony.

Joseph Price, an economics professor at Brigham Young University, explained his analysis of Rosenfeld’s study. He criticized the study for putting too many restrictions on the sample and, after having lifted the restrictions and re-crunching the numbers, Price and his co-authors concluded that children of same-sex parents were 35% less likely to attain normal progress in school. However, Price was unable to explain what that statistic meant in real-life numbers and acknowledged that same-sex couples would likely benefit from the ability to legally marry.

Douglas Allen, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University, as well as one of Price’s co-authors, took the stand in defense of the same-sex marriage ban on the basis that children of same-sex parents are less likely to achieve positive educational outcomes. Like Price, he criticized Rosenfeld’s study.

Allen, citing his own research based on Canadian census data, alleged that children of same-sex parents were only 65% as likely as their counterparts to graduate high school. Allen also testified that he holds the belief that “unrepentant” homosexuals will face “eternal separation from God,” but maintained that his personal religious beliefs did not affect his research.

To talk about the sweeping changes we've seen in the last decade and look at some upcoming challenges, we're talking about Marriage Matters . This series of blogs takes a look at history of the fight for LGBT rights in Michigan to an in-depth look at the DeBoer case, which could impact marriage equality in Michigan. 


Key News & Documents

Marriage Matters

LGBT Rights