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.

In an Alice in Wonderland turn of events, the U.S. Department of Justice has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to criminally charge six Saginaw police officers who killed Milton Hall, a black, 49-year-old mentally ill homeless man almost two years ago.The police reportedly shot 47 bullets at Hall who, at the time was unarmed except for a knife that he held while officers stood a significant distance away. As a civilian, Hall had every right to expect that the police would protect his life, but instead, he was the target of what resembled in many ways a gangland execution. 

What can be said with absolute certainty about the so-called plan of adjustment Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr released last week?Almost nothing.It is a plan built on a mountain of ifs.According to a summary of the plan, “police and fire retirees would likely receive in excess of 90 percent of their earned pensions after elimination of cost of living allowances,” and “general retirees would likely receive in excess of 70 percent of their pensions after elimination of cost of living allowances.”

What can be said with absolute certainty about the so-called plan of adjustment Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr released last week?Almost nothing.It is a plan built on a mountain of ifs.According to a summary of the plan, “police and fire retirees would likely receive in excess of 90 percent of their earned pensions after elimination of cost of living allowances,” and “general retirees would likely receive in excess of 70 percent of their pensions after elimination of cost of living allowances.”But that’s only if they agree to give up without a fight and promise no lawsuits in the future. Otherwise the deal gets more stingy, and will be heaped on top of crushing cuts to medical benefits.Either way, the offer hinges on a promise by Gov. Rick Snyder to deliver $350 million in state money. But that’s a pledge Snyder can’t fill on his own. To actually deliver all those millions, he must convince a legislature that’s controlled by conservatives often hostile to Detroit to actually appropriate the money.On the other hand, it could be that the pensioners won’t have to take any cut at all. Obscured by all the coverage of Orr’s proposed “adjustments” was news that the U.S. 6th Circuit of Appeals had agreed to consider a case, brought by the city’s two pension systems and others, which challenges the legitimacy of the bankruptcy itself.A key component of that case is the contention that the Michigan Constitution guarantees the payment of pensions promised to public employees, and that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes grievously erred when he allowed those pensions to be placed on the chopping block along with other unsecured creditors.And just who, really, is an unsecured creditor – meaning one that is subject to the kind of buzz cuts the bankruptcy court will be administering?As the New York Times reported, it seems unlikely that Wall Street is going to willfully roll over and accept pennies on the dollar for debt it is owed. “While we understand that favoring pensioners and discriminating against bondholders and other creditors may be politically popular, we believe this is contrary to bankruptcy law and will result in costly litigation that will hamper the city’s emergence from bankruptcy,” Steve Spencer, a financial advisor to one of the companies that insures several types of Detroit’s debt, told the paper.And then there’s a lawsuit Detroit filed claiming that a disastrous deal involving certificates of participation was actually illegal. If the city prevails in that case, it would free itself of $1.4 billion in outstanding debt.How can any final settlement with anyone be calculated with that big if still hanging out there?Aside from the virtual certainty that Kevyn Orr and company are going to burn through the $95 million that’s been extracted from departments throughout the city to pay for restructuring costs during the current fiscal year – with much of that money going into the very deep pockets at Orr’s former law firm, Jones Day – what else is considered to be a safe bet in this mess of a bankruptcy?Well, for one thing, there are the grassroots efforts by a coalition of activists who gathered at the Historic King Solomon Baptist Church on Detroit’s west side. Despite a dearth of media attention, they can be counted on to keep plugging away with their message, which is gradually finding a broader audience. The group held a press conference on Monday to announce a plan of their own, one intended to counteract what Detroit attorney Julie Hurwitz called a “full-scale assault on our constitutional rights and protections.”The reason they are doing so is laid out in the preamble to the group's People’s Plan for Restructuring Toward a Sustainable Detroit itself, which begins:“The restructuring and rebirth of Detroit will not be delivered by a state-imposed emergency manager, nor through Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings, foundation contributions, closed door deals, or other devious and misleading corporate schemes. Detroit’s rebirth will be the result of the people’s unrelenting demand for democratic self-governance, equal access to and management of the natural and economic resources of the city.”Anyone interested in learning more about that plan can visit the web site of the group Detroiters Resisting Emergency Management. That plan will be the focal point of a town hall meeting being held on Sunday, March 2 at 3 p.m. at Central United Methodist Church (the corner of Woodward and Grand Circus Park in downtown Detroit).By Curt Guyette, Investigative Reporter

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.