News & Commentary

In Michigan, it’s still far too easy to discriminate.

With a history of civil liberties stretching back almost a century, the ACLU has got plenty of amazing cases for #TBT. Every Thursday, we'll be sharing updates on cases pulled from our archives of work in Michigan and beyond.

We often joke that we’re accidental activists. Marsha and I were the first same-sex couple to be married in Michigan on March 22. Our joy turned to sadness when Governor Snyder declared that we, and over 300 other couples married that historic day, are legally married but cannot reap the benefits of marriage. The State is not recognizing our marriages. Fast forward five months. We left at 6 a.m. – destination, a federal courthouse in Detroit. We were driving to a hearing, led by the ACLU of Michigan, to ask a judge to force the state to recognize our marriages as a matter of law and fundamental fairness. It was a mixture of excitement and anxiety for us. After all, there’s a lot hanging in the balance for us and our fellow newlyweds – basic dignity and respect, paternal rights of parents, protection of children should one parent die, pensions and survivor benefits, health insurance, etc. The matter of fundamental dignity and respect hit home immediately. When the State’s attorneys presented why we shouldn't get the benefits of marriage and why they don't think what they are doing is causing any harm, I broke down in tears. This basic emotional reaction came fast and hard. Experiencing lack of respect isn’t something new, but it’s usually more subtle. Their overt articulation of disrespect and quite frankly, discrimination, was jarring. We did not create the situation of having to take the State to court, as they claim, by getting married on March 22. We waited 27 years to get married, not by choice, but by exclusion – we simply weren’t allowed to marry. This exclusion was formalized in 2004 when the voters of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Judge Friedman stuck down that ban as unconstitutional on March 21. Fundamental rights cannot be trumped by the vote of a majority, especially a majority that no longer exists. So, we had the opportunity, as did couples in four Michigan counties that we had long been waiting for. It was not a rush to marry; for us it was something that was a long time in the making. What we are asking for is simple − to be treated equally. We don’t want special rights, just the same rights afforded to other married couples. Being legally married and receiving the benefits and protections of marriage are not, and cannot be, mutually exclusive. But by making that distinction, the State has caused us to challenge them in court. Doesn’t the State have better ways to spend their time and taxpayer dollars, like creating jobs and retaining productive citizens within our borders? I want to thank the ACLU for taking the lead on this case and for sticking up for the rights of minorities. The bottom line in all of this – we are legally married and the State simply cannot mandatorily divorce us.  

Today, Sterling Heights will vote on an ordinance that would protect its citizens from discrimination, banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, public accommodations, and housing.

I've been happily married for nearly 33 years. I know first-hand how much marriage can mean to a couple and their children, and it has hurt me to see other loving couples barred from sharing the same joys and sorrows. I’m ecstatic that I've been part of the legal team which has opened the door to marriage for all loving couples in our state. This struggle is far from over. In the weeks and months ahead, we'll need everyone's support to ensure that the clock isn't turned back on our progress. Michigan’s Attorney General has already appealed the victory.  The fight will be long, hard and expensive. You can be a part of history by supporting the litigation through your donation. When we first brought this case just two years ago, it was about April and Jayne’s right to adopt each other’s children. We never imagined that the case would turn into a challenge to Michigan’s discriminatory marriage amendment.  Sometimes, things can change fast. First the judge invited us to expand the case to include a challenge to the Michigan Marriage Amendment. Then he decided that the issues in the case were important enough that there should be a full trial – the first marriage equality case to go to trial since California's ban was ruled unconstitutional – and he agreed to expedite the trial date. When the trial started on February 25, though, we were ready. All of our witnesses were at the top of their field. As Judge Friedman found, the State’s witnesses were part of a "fringe" group.  The legal question was whether sexual orientation was a valid reason for denying full equality to some of those couples, and Judge Friedman has answered with a resounding “no”! Reading Judge Friedman’s landmark decision was an exhilarating experience. He heard our message and speaks in stirring language, pointing out that the protections, joy and dignity of marriage are the right of all Michiganders. All couples have the right to love one another, make a commitment to one another and decide together whether to form a family. As excited as we are about this victory, this struggle is far from over. Depending on what happens, this case could end where it is now, at the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, or it could possibly end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.  We’re going to keep fighting to protect April and Jayne and their children for as long as it takes, but we need your help. Talk about the case with your friends, keep sending us your good wishes and consider giving the fight your financial support. We’ve made it this far with the help of many generous donors, and we’re going to need a lot of help again as we defend this win on appeal. This has been a truly amazing case to be involved in. It has been wonderful working with and getting to know April and Jayne, and I have heard touching stories from many folks about how this case is affecting them, their friends, relatives or co-workers. We have also seen first-hand how public opinion in Michigan is shifting right before our eyes. With the support of amazing friends across our state, we hope this is the last time loving couples like April and Jayne have to prove that they are the same as any other couple. 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 deals with the history of the fight for LGBT rights and takes an in-depth look at the DeBoer case, which could impact marriage equality in Michigan and beyond. 

If I hadn’t gone to the Washtenaw County Clerk’s office on Saturday morning, I don’t think I could live with myself. I wanted to be able to tell my grandchildren that I was a part of history, and history was happening at 9 AM, March 22 as the first marriage licenses were issued to same sex couples in Michigan. There were hundreds of us. Couples waiting to be married, their parents, children and friends. Before the building opened the line snaked around the block. I took my place with the officiants, having obtained a non-denominational ordination several months ago in anticipation of this day. When the doors opened, the crowd crushed forward. Clergy and judges, almost two dozen of us, gathered in a downstairs conference room, ready to perform ceremonies as the licenses were issued. The first couple emerged from the clerk’s office to cheers and came to the conference room to be married by Judge Judith Levy, Michigan’s first openly gay judge. Judge Levy had been sworn in just four days before and was performing her first official act as a Federal judge. “Marriage is a civil right,” Judge Levy reminded us. The vows were said, rings exchanged, the couple kissed, the crowd cheered and Michigan had one more married couple – just the same as every other, yet so historically important. The crowd seemed to grow and grow. The conference room heated up. Donations began arriving – bouquets of flowers for anyone who didn’t have them. Cases of water. Cake. Rainbow confetti. A violinist began playing in the lobby. A photographer took pictures and collected emails to send them to the couples. Families milled around with their children, waiting to witness and celebrate the marriages of total strangers because they felt drawn to this place. The second ceremony, officiated by a local pastor, began. Two women approached the table. “We’re number 3,” they said. They had been together for 8 years and had 5 children, including twin babies waiting at home. They weren’t sure if they could have their ceremony because they had no officiant and brought no witnesses. Two people nearby volunteered as witnesses, and I started my first wedding ceremony, saying words I had rehearsed in my head for months. “Some will say what we do here today is revolutionary,” I began, “Some will say it is historic. But I have another word for what we are about to do... Redundant. Nothing we can do here today will add to or change in any way the fact that you are married. You did that long ago. We are here to play catch-up on behalf of the state of Michigan. And as the representative of the State in this ceremony, I want to say, thank you for not giving up on us.” I led the brides through the same vows that my husband and I made 21 years ago at our own wedding. The couple kissed, the crowd cheered, confetti flew. I officiated three ceremonies and served as a witness for another. My Rabbi arrived and a chupah – a Jewish wedding canopy -- was raised in the corner for two couples from my congregation. At one point, I could simultaneously hear a Hebrew prayer, an Apache blessing and a judge asking if a couple were there of their own free will. More than 70 licenses were issued. The Clerk’s office closed, and we were done for the day. Hours later, the sixth circuit issued a stay of the historic ruling that had made it all possible. Who knows when I will be able to officiate weddings – all weddings, without discrimination – again. This amazing day was not about me. But it was about people like me: a community – regardless of sexual orientation – putting together the pieces of a wedding and making it happen for our neighbors. That is what I will tell my grandchildren when I tell them about the day Michigan made history. 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 deals with the history of the fight for LGBT rights and takes an in-depth look at the DeBoer case, which could impact marriage equality in Michigan and beyond. 

It’s 2014. It’s the future! Still, every day I'm shocked that parts of our nation still seem trapped in a time warp.

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.