News & Commentary

Marriage equality came to the U.S. when the Supreme Court handed down the Obergefell v Hodges decision. This ruling was the culmination of decades of effort by lesbian, gay and bisexual communities to be viewed with equal dignity and respect by our society. That victory didn’t come without first winning the hearts and minds of more than 60 percent of the American public.

Adopting Hate

The Senate voted today to pass anti-adoption RFRA bills that could allow adoption and foster agencies to stop loving and welcoming LGBT couples across Michigan from taking in children in need of a home. These harmful bills will now go to Gov. Rick Snyder’s desk.

DETROIT — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Michigan announced on Thursday that they have filed a federal lawsuit against the Michigan Secretary of State challenging a department policy that makes it impossible for many transgender individuals to correct the gender on their driver’s licenses and other forms of identification.

As I lay in my sleeping bag on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court on Monday in line for Tuesday’s marriage equality argument, my mind was racing. Primarily, I marveled about how far we’ve come as a society in recognizing the dignity and rights of gay people in such a short period of time. I thought about the fact that when I attended a small, close-knit high school in rural Maine, being gay was so taboo, and being openly gay was so dangerous, that I honestly thought that there were no gay students in our school. I was wrong. When I returned for my reunion a couple of years ago, the atmosphere has changed to such an extent that nearly a third of the students were out—including my best friend! I also thought about all the difficult legal battles we at the ACLU have fought over the past two decades to afford gay residents of our state even the most basic rights—including the right to jointly adopt children with one’s partner; the right to form a Gay-Straight Alliance in high school; the right for a worker to receive health benefits for his or her same-sex partner; and, most recently, the right of the couples who married the day after a federal judge struck down the Michigan ban on same-sex marriage to have their marriages recognized by the state. While we won most if these cases, it was remarkable to think how the government fought us tooth and nail and spared no expense to defend discrimination. And it was satisfying to think that now there was a growing consensus in society that the ACLU was on the right side of history. I had been to five oral arguments at the Supreme Court and sat at counsel table for three of them. However, this case was special. When I started at the ACLU 18 years ago, the idea that we would achieve marriage equality in such a short time was a pipe dream. But here we were, sleeping outside for the opportunity to witness oral argument in what was likely to be landmark civil rights victory – a rare happening with such a conservative Supreme Court. The argument itself was fascinating. At first, the conservative justices peppered Mary Bonauto, a hero of the gay rights movement for decades, with questions suggesting that the court was powerless to declare a right to same-sex marriage when the 17 countries in the world that recognize same-sex marriage did not do so until the 21st century. We were concerned. Why were the justices so fixated on what Plato thought about gay relationships in ancient Greece rather than the blatant discrimination gay couples faced today? But then the more liberal judges, and yes, Justice Kennedy too, poked some major holes in the state’s argument that denying gay couples the right to marry was okay because the state wanted to insure that children would grow up in a home with married parents. How exactly does withholding marriage from one group, increase the value of marriage to the other group? Isn’t one of the goals of marriage to bestow dignity on the couple and doesn’t that apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples? Doesn’t the constitution place limits on the ability of people to vote for discriminatory measures? How can religious concerns be used to discriminate against gay couples any more than it can be used to discriminate against interracial couples? Wouldn’t the children of gay couples benefit if their parents could marry? The arguments produced some noteworthy moments that only those present could truly experience: A scary, anti-gay activist interrupted argument by screaming at the top of his lungs about abomination and hell, and he continued to yell for several minutes as he was dragged out of the courtroom by marshals. The audience chuckled loudly when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (a/k/a the Notorious RBG) asked Michigan’s attorney something like, “If it’s true, as you say, that the state’s sole interest in marriage is procreation, could the state deny a marriage license to a 70-year-old?” And, at one point, Justices Scalia and Thomas leaned back so far in their chairs it looked like they were sleeping in a lounge chair by the pool rather than presiding over a landmark civil rights case. As I stepped outside after the argument onto the sunny steps of the Supreme Court and looked out at the hundreds of gay pride flags and signs, I felt optimistic about the capacity for society to change. Obviously, we have a long way to go until LGBT persons have true equality and there are so many seemingly intransient problems that we face in this country—continued oppression of people of color and the poor, attacks on reproductive freedom, the loss of privacy, and mass incarceration, to name just a few. But, at that moment at least, I felt hopeful that we are capable of transforming society to honor civil liberties and human rights. By Michael Steinberg

In light of the growing number of state legislatures taking pains to introduce laws written to “protect” religious liberty, you’d think that the idea of safeguarding religious freedom is one that just occurred to the United States. 

Ever wonder who’s behind the work here at the ACLU of Michigan? In our new blog series Five Questions, ACLU of Michigan staff will talk about the incredible day-to-day work defending civil liberties. We'll be asking our fellows to speak about their experiences in the office as well as the passions that drove them to engage in the social-justice work in which they are currently engaged. Today we're sitting down with Legal Fellow Linda Jordan.  What is being a legal fellow at the ACLU of Michigan like? As a legal fellow at the ACLU of Michigan, I assist staff attorneys on a variety of legal projects. These include drafting memoranda addressing the merits of potential cases and constitutional theories, investigating civil rights violations, interviewing potential plaintiffs and drafting complaints and briefs. What brought you to the ACLU of Michigan? As a native Michigander, I have always been invested in the affairs of our state. After graduating from Fordham Law School last May, I knew that I wanted to pursue a career in public interest law, and I couldn’t think of better place to start than in Detroit. I was interested in a variety of civil rights and social justice issues, and I deeply admired the breadth of the ACLU of Michigan’s work. How has your work here shaped your interest in public interest law? There is tremendous value in working at an ACLU affiliate like the ACLU of Michigan. My work is not confined to one substantive area of civil rights law, but rather, it is tailored to the particular needs of the state. I have gained experience on a variety of issues including free speech, Fourth Amendment search and seizure, reproductive justice and religious refusal. Perhaps most importantly, I have learned a great deal about impact litigation strategy. The ACLU of Michigan not only brings cases to protect the rights of individual plaintiffs, but also to achieve broader relief. Limited resources force attorneys and staff members to make careful determinations about where to focus their efforts. The ability to weigh the various factors involved in bringing an impact litigation suit and make the right decision is a skill I hope to further develop and to employ throughout my legal career. What are your plans for your career after your ACLU of Michigan experience? I would like explore other public interest careers in Detroit. I am particularly interested in the intersection of poverty law, racial justice and community economic development. Given the current pro-development climate in Detroit, an important question to ask is “development for whom?” Public policies should promote equitable development to ensure that new projects benefit the entire community, not just the wealthy few. Eliminating hazardous blight that detracts from the neighborhood is a laudable goal, but how do we prevent the blight in the first place? How do we as a community help keep people in their homes and make sure they have access to safe drinking water? I am interested in addressing the root causes of poverty and combatting the insidious processes and systemic racism that have caused vast racial inequality. What civil liberties issues are you most personally drawn to? In addition to economic and racial justice, I have always advocated for women's rights and reproductive freedom. I am particularly troubled by the trend toward "religious refusal," and its implications on women's and LGBTQ rights. More and more often, individuals, corporations and other entities are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against women and the LGBTQ community. Medical professionals are denying women basic reproductive healthcare in the name of religion. Catholic-affiliated hospitals mandate that doctors make decisions based on religious doctrine and not their medical expertise. Along the same vein, business-owners are refusing to provide services to LGBTQ people in the name of religion, and recently a doctor even refused to treat a newborn solely because her parents were gay. I consider myself fortunate to be working at an organization that both protects religious freedom, and is working to expand anti-discrimination laws to ensure that religion is not being used a license to discriminate.

Almost one year ago, I looked into the eyes of Glenna, the woman I have loved for 27 years and said those two magical words that would forever seal our union as one.It was a long time coming. But on that day, Glenna and I unintentionally made history when we became the first same-sex couple to legally marry in the state of Michigan.

It's getting closer to becoming another bad Michigan law: This Wednesday, March 18, the Michigan House will vote on legislation that would give adoption agencies the power to deny couples the freedom to adopt or foster children who are in need of good, stable homes.