News & Commentary

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    

All eyes are on the DeBoer trial, a potentially groundbreaking case for marriage equality and families across Michigan. However, coverage of the case can be peppered with legal mumbo jumbo. While we patiently follow the DeBoer case, we may find ourselves wondering what it all means and asking ourselves questions like, “What is a deposition and why is it important?” Well, we are here to help clarify. Depositions are the precursor to trial testimony. When a trial date is set, both parties are required to submit lists of the witnesses they plan on calling to the stand to testify. Each side receives the opponent’s list and then has the right and ability to examine the witnesses, ensuring that each side is equally prepared for trial and that the process is fair. Despite the sensationalization of the legal system on television and in movies, there are no surprises in real life trials. Depositions make sure of that. How? Well, after each side receives the lists of witnesses, they depose those them. Depositions most often take place in an attorney’s office, with attorneys, the witness being deposed (deponent), and a court reported who transcribes the entire deposition for the record. The parties involved may also be present, but it is not necessary to the process. Judges rarely attend the depositions, except under special circumstances. What happens? First, the deponent is sworn under oath. This ensures the veracity of the testimony being given, so that it cannot be revoked on the stand. Deponents face the same consequences for perjury during a deposition as they do during trial testimony. Next, the attorneys ask as many questions as they believe to be relevant to the case. Depending on the case, the witness, and the testimony being given, depositions can take as little as fifteen minutes or as long as several days. Why take a deposition? Depositions are extremely important to all trials. They give attorneys for both sides the opportunity to determine what damaging testimony they will be up against in court during the trial. By eliciting this information during a deposition, attorneys then have the opportunity to find ways to strengthen their argument for court or find strategies to undermine the potentially damaging testimony. Additionally, depositions eliminate any chance that opposing sides will bring a surprise witness to the stand and leaving the other side unprepared for cross examination. In the DeBoer case, the deposition process was extremely important. Because so much of the case rests on the testimony of expert witnesses regarding LGBT families, depositions gave the plaintiffs’ attorneys the opportunity to find out what experts and what studies the State would be using to argue against adoption and marriage equality. Through depositions, the plaintiffs’ attorneys gained an understanding of the State’s arguments and could get ready to dismantle these arguments detail by detail. Since witness testimony concluded today, we will be posting a summary of each witnesses' testimony before closing arguents begin tomorrow.

Anyone at all familiar with Michigan’s emergency manager law knows that the people handed control of municipalities and school districts facing financial crises have extraordinary power.In fact, the law goes even further than many realize, creating the possibility that residents of cities under emergency management may emerge from state control with a completely revamped form of local government imposed on them by the governor.

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.”