News & Commentary

Being an undergraduate intern here at the ACLU of Michigan is a dream. Sometimes I spend my days doing small tasks like working with spreadsheets, and sometimes I spend my day in Lansing attending House Committee hearings. No matter what I am doing, I am always lucky enough to be surrounded by the hubbub of our exciting and important work. And yesterday, I had the awesome task of covering day 6 of the DeBoer trial. Here's what happened. Yesterday, ACLU attorney Leslie Cooper, representing April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, finished her cross-examination of sociologist Mark Regnerus. The attorneys questioned Regnerus thoroughly on the reliability and validity of studies that claim to show LGBT families are unstable. The cross-examination was excellent, but nothing could be as damaging as the scathing statement released yesterday by the University of Texas at Austin. Regnerus’ own employer called his study “fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds,” and explicitly refused to endorse Regnerus’ research and any affiliation with the Austin Institute, where both Regnerus and other State expert witness Joesph Price are Senior Fellows. Economist Joseph Price was the next witness called by the State. The State questioned Price about an article he coauthored titled “Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld.” Throughout the questioning, Price attempted to explain how his study, which he called an extension of Rosenfeld’s work, came to vastly different conclusions than did Rosenfeld. Price argued that Rosenfeld had used too small a sample, a consequence of the two restrictions Rosenfeld had placed on the sample. Price eliminated these sample restrictions and concluded that children of opposite-sex couples are 35% more likely to make normal progress in school than children of same-sex couples. During cross-examination, Dana Nessel requested that Price explain what this 35% chance meant in real numbers, asking if the 35% chance was the difference between 30 students being held back while 60 students passed on to the next grade, or if it was more comparable to 98% of children passed successfully to the next grade, while 2% of children were held back. Price, the expert in numbers, was unable to answer. That wasn't the only time Dana Nessel stumped him. Price stated he “didn’t know” what the mission of the Heritage Foundation is despite attending its conference in 2010, where he met his co-author Douglas Allen. He also “didn’t know” what the mission of the Austin Institute is despite being a Senior Fellow there, alongside Regnerus. In questioning Price about one of his publications which highlighted the benefits of marriage, Nessel asked Price if he believed that LGBT families would be worse off if they could marry and share in these benefits. “I don’t have any reason to believe that,” he responded. Nessel continued to question Price about his own critique of Rosenfeld’s study, as well as other studies upon which Price’s testimony relied, when court adjourned for the day. This morning, Price concluded his testimony and the State called Professor Loren Marks, who concentrates his research on how religion influences marriages and families. Dr. Marks is a contributor to Same-sex Parenting and Children’s Outcomes: A Closer Examination of the American Psychological Association’s Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting, which challenges the 2005 American Psychological Association brief asserting that: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” 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.  By Lauryn Pennington, Undergraduate Intern

The legal process of addressing and holding as unconstitutional same sex marriage bans in the remaining 33 prohibition states continued to unfold in Detroit this week with the commencement of the trial in DeBoer v. Snyder. April DeBoer and Jayne Rouse, a lesbian couple, adopted three special needs children together, raising them as a family in metro Detroit. But because some adoption judges interpret Michigan’s adoption law as prohibiting same sex couples from co-adopting, the future of this family is uncertain. The ability to jointly adopt is crucial, since if the legal parent were to become incapacitated or die, the surviving mother is not recognized as a parent of the deceased mother’s children. This could result in the destruction of this family and the removal of the only parent that these children have ever known. When I met April and Jayne and their children at a litigation fundraiser in January, I was struck by the simplicity and sincerity of this family. These women are two hard-working nurses sharing their lives and raising three young children together as a family. They don’t come across as activists or leaders of a movement. They each told me that they never expected so much attention from this litigation. They said that they simply wanted to raise and protect their children just like any other family. “It’s all about our children,” April told me over and over that evening. Yet, they have found themselves thrust into the forefront of the marriage equality movement in Michigan as their case works its way through the trial process and may end up in the Federal appellate courts and possibly all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the past few months, no fewer than 5 federal courts all over the country have held trials addressing similar challenges to same-sex marriage bans across the country. In Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia and Texas, 5 out of 5 Federal trial judges have held that the marriage bans violate the US Constitution as set forth in US v. Windsor, last summer's victory over the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The trial is expected to run through the first week of March, with a decision by Judge Friedman expected shortly after the trial. ...what happens if there's a "marriage window?" I am very excited to watch this case unfold in Michigan, particularly because of the promise that Michigan may soon join the other 17 marriage equality states and Washington DC and treat ALL of its citizens with equality, dignity and respect. Many of my lesbian and gay friends and clients living in Michigan have chosen to wait until Michigan becomes an equality state before they marry their loved one. For me and my husband, we simply did not want to wait. As soon as the Windsor decision was announced on June 26, 2013, we immediately made plans for our marriage. We felt forced to have a “destination wedding” because that was our only choice. Sure, it would have been easier, more convenient, less expensive and more personal to get married in the city where we live, at a church or location of our own choice, with ALL of our family and friends in attendance. But since Michigan will not allow us to legally marry, we settled upon Washington D.C. After all, what better location than on the front steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, the very court that gave us the right to marry? And so we were married there last summer on July 28, a sunny summer morning with two friends as witnesses, in a ceremony that changed our lives forever. We look forward to the day when Michigan's marriage law is changed so we can renew our marriage vows in our own home town in front of our family and friends. I have so much admiration and respect for April and Jayne, these two quiet nurses and busy moms from metro Detroit who have had the courage and fortitude to stand up not only for what they believe to be right and best for their family, but to pave the way for untold numbers of Michigan families who will be able to go through the doors that they are opening, for generations to come. 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. 

At the playground, three-year-old Olivia sang to herself as her brother Stuart played on the monkey bars with a crowd of other little boys. It was a sweet, everyday moment with my best friend’s family.My best friend Sarah has been with her wife Rachel for now more than 20 years – longer than my own mother and father were married. As co-moms to Olivia and Stuart, I marveled at their happy family when they visted me this year.That summer day has been on my mind this week as experts testifying in DeBoer v Snyder have debunked myths – some would say lies – about the ability of same-sex couples to raise healthy, functional children.The heart of the State’s argument against same-sex second parent adoption is based on studies that claim children are harmed when they are not raised by two married, heterosexual parents.The New York Times noted that “longtime scholars in the field, backed by major professional organizations… call those studies fatally flawed. These scholars will describe a near consensus that, other factors like income and stability being equal, children of same-sex couples do just as well as those of heterosexual couples.” Well, duh.It's important that the most reliable data supports the contention that LGBT parents are no better nor worse than heterosexual parents.Yet for me and many others, we don’t need researchers to tell us what we live and witness every day: kids who needed a family and thrive in the loving, patient homes of the same-sex parents who said, “I commit myself to loving and caring for this child.”Our research is the sight of kids with two moms that happily sing to themselves in their strollers while their siblings swing on monkey bars and dig around in the sandbox.On Monday, ACLU LGBT and AIDS Project veteran attorney Leslie Cooper will cross-examine Mark Regnerus, the State’s star witness. Regnerus authored a deeply flawed study concluding that children raised in same-sex households fare worse than kids raised in married, heterosexual households.Leslie Cooper fought for 12 years to end Florida’s same-sex adoption ban and won. She is expected bring that commitment to Michigan, building on the testimony earlier this week that poked big holes in the Regnerus study. Am I looking forward to watching Leslie Cooper skillfully attack Regnerus’ testimony on Monday? Absolutely. But my mind will really be on my friends' happy, curious, sweet, funny, lively, smart kids and a future with true equality and security that we are working to leave them.

During the course of the entire trial, there will be many experts taking the stand before Judge Bernard Friedman of the United States District Court, testifying both for and against marriage equality and the right for same-sex couples to jointly adopt children. The first few days of the much-anticipated DeBoer trial started out strong in favor of the quality, competence and power of LGBT families.

Across Michigan, cities and townships are passing anti-discrimination policies that respect the rights of LGBT men and women. As of this week, the largest county in Michigan has joined them in standing for equality!

Jay Kaplan, LGBT Project Staff AttorneyShare this on Facebook | Tweet ThisApril and Jayne just wanted to jointly adopt three special needs children they were foster parenting.Without both women adopting the children as a family, the couple worried that their kids would lack the legal protection of both parents.Yet they discovered Michigan had many hurdles that would not permit them to adopt their children together. Many Michigan judges interpret the state's adoption law to mean only married couples can adopt together, using this to discriminate against LGBT couples.Here at the ACLU of Michigan, we don’t agree with that interpretation of the law. Yet that has been the legal reality for LGBT families in many counties.April and Jayne filed a federal lawsuit, DeBoer v. Snyder, challenging the State’s refusal to allow them to be legal parents to their children. The State of Michigan is defending this discriminatory policy. Judge Friedman was assigned to the case and pointed out that the right to adopt hinged on the legal status of marriage. He suggested that April and Jayne should challenge Michigan’s prohibition on the right of same-sex couples to marry as well.Now, with both adoption and marriage laws being challenged, the policies that most obviously deny same-sex couples the same fundamental rights afforded to opposite-sex couples will be on trial.{C}After initial briefings and motions, Judge Friedman decided that such an important case shouldn't be decided without hearing all the facts. He has asked that both sides present experts to testify both in favor and against marriage equality for same-sex couples.This historic hearing will take place on February 25th, where it will be up to the State to provide constitutional justification this legally-sanctioned discrimination.We don’t think they will be able to pull it off and we believe that this case is the vehicle towards marriage equality in Michigan.Today, I'm hosting a free one-hour briefing for anyone curious about this case and marriage equality in Michigan.

Jay Kaplan, LGBT Project Staff AttorneyShare this on Facebook | Tweet ThisAcross the country, we are seeing incredible progress made in terms of marriage equality and relationship recognition.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 month. This series of blogs will range from the history of the fight for LGBT rights in Michigan to an in-depth look at the upcoming DeBoer case, which could impact marriage equality in Michigan when heard later this month. To date, 17 states as well as the District of Columbia permit same-sex couples to marry, and more will soon join with almost 50 current legal challenges in both state and federal courts regarding the issue. At the ACLU of Michigan, we maintain that a legal civil marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, recognized by the United States Supreme Court.These marriage certificates are more than just a piece of paper or the opportunity to celebrate love. They are the legal recognition of the dignity and worth of same-sex couples and their love and commitment to one another.In Michigan, we still have a long way to go. Current Michigan law denies same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry. The right to marry has significant impact on both the financial and emotional stability of LGBT families. It affects the relationships of parents and children, leaving children without the legal protections and security of two parents.The right to marry also determines the eligibility of loved ones to access important financial securities, such as social security benefits and health insurance. Without this fundamental right, LGBT families suffer the indignity of being legally fragmented in the most basic of ways.The ACLU of Michigan is unique in that it one of the only ACLU state affiliates that has a project specifically devoted to the legal issues and concerns of the LGBT community, established in 2001.For the past 13 years, the ACLU of Michigan has worked tirelessly to ensure that LGBT couples and families have the rights or will gain the rights to practice their love and raise their families the same as everyone else. We will continue to work tirelessly until every couple and every family in Michigan is considered equal under the law, from the schoolhouse to the altar.Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to read more in our Marriage Matters series.Key News & DocumentsLearn more about issues you care about and take action: become a member, subscribe to our email action alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. 

So just what do we do all year?If you’re ever wondered how the ACLU of Michigan is advancing civil liberties and rights in the courts throughout Michigan, the latest edition of the ACLU of Michigan legal docket should clear up all your questions right away.Every year we publish a comprehensive listing of the amazing work done by our legal team and volunteer attorneys to protect our civil and constitutional rights.In our January 2014 edition, you can read the stories of over a hundred cases involving education, poverty, racial justice, LGBT rights, immigrant rights, women’s rights, free speech, police misconduct and more.

Share this on Facebook | Tweet ThisJay Kaplan, LGBT Project Staff AttorneyThere was a lot of excitement among supporters of marriage equality swirling around the decision of one judge yesterday... and a lot of disappointment after the judge announced there would be no decision. But sometimes no decision is the best decision. Here's why this could be the best thing for our chances for allowing same-sex couples to marry after all. Yesterday, Judge Bernard Friedman of the United District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by an Oakland County lesbian couple challenging Michigan’s marriage ban.Despite a lot of speculation, Judge Friedman decided to hold a trial on the case, calling on both sides of the argument to present expert witnesses to defend their claims. This means that in order to defend Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, their legal team will need to present testimony from experts that convinces the judge that allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt children would somehow destroy Michigan. This is a good thing and could only strengthen a favorable opinion for marriage equality in Michigan. After all, that's what happened in California.{C}California's Proposition 8In California, supporters of marriage equality faced Proposition 8, an amendment to their state constitution that denied same-sex couples the right to marry.Just like here in Michigan, a judge asked to hear testimony from experts who could back up the rationale for denying gay couples the right to marry. And lo and behold, they couldn’t provide defend their claims. The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses who were unconvincing, and who made mistakes that actually helped the side of marriage equality. Turns out that it’s easy to throw around discriminatory claims implying that allowing loving same-sex couples to marry and start families somehow damages our state. It’s much more difficult backing that up with scientific studies to prove that rationale.In California, a trial was the best possible place to show how ridiculous and flimsy the opposition to marriage equality is. Now Michigan will have that same chance. Polls across the country show public support for marriage equality continues to rise and the historic Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will pave the way for equality for lesbian and gay couples across America, but for a full civil rights victory we must take that power into the voting booth and onto the streets to speak out for change.Here at the ACLU, we're supporting legal and legislative work across our nation to repeal existing marriage amendments and win fair marriage laws through Out For Freedom campaign.The verdict of one judge is important, but it's through working together and using our voices and our votes that we will truly relegate discrimination against gay and lesbian couples to the dustbin of history.Learn more about issues you care about and take action: become a member, subscribe to our email action alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.