The legal issues involved in deciding whether Michigan's ban on gay and lesbian marriages is constitutional are too complex for a ruling based solely on legal briefs and oral arguments today, Federal Judge Bernard Friedman decided.
At a hearing that lasted slightly more than an hour, he declined to issue an immediate judgment for either side and scheduled a full trial that will start Feb. 25 and include expert witnesses. “I have to decide this as a matter of law,” he said, according to the Free Press.
“The issue has to be expedited,” The Detroit News quotes him as saying.
Some journalists had speculated that an on-the-spot ruling -- called a summary judgment -- would come this afternoon. "Judge Bernard Friedman is expected to rule today on whether Michigan’s 2004 ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution," says the introduction to one Detroit daily's live blog.
"It's due diligence on the judge's part," reader Noel Siksai of Royal Oak commented at that site. "Whichever way it goes, he doesn't want to be overturned on a technicality." Siksai is president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Michigan, a group that advocates equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Zachary Gorchow, editor of Gongwer News Service, which focuses on state government and public affairs, posted a commentary about half an hour after the hearing's end. An excerpt:
A same-day ruling seemed somewhat unlikely given the magnitude of the case, and a written ruling in the near future, one way or the other, seemed more likely. . . .
But Mr. Friedman, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, pulled a surprise, scheduling a February 25 trial to resolve factual issues.
Mr. Friedman has had this case for 13 months, and most would argue it is pretty simple, regardless of where you stand on the issue. That Mr. Friedman, who clearly seemed conflicted at today’s hearing, now sees a trial as necessary to resolve factual issues pretty much crushes the idea that he was leaning toward striking down Michigan’s gay marriage ban.
It does not mean he is now leaning toward upholding it, but after today’s hearing, who knows where he is heading.
Wednesday, noon article:
Arguments for and against ending Michigan's nine-year-old prohibition against same-sex marriages are being presented Wednesday afternoon in Detroit's Federal Court.
Jayne Rowse holds her 4-year-old son, Nolan, at left. April DeBoer holds Ryanne and Jacob, both 3.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman will hear testimony involving a lawsuit by Hazel Park nurses Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, who originally sued to win joint custody of their adopted children and later expanded the case to involve the same-sex marriage ban.
Though it seems highly unlikely, Friedman may issue a ruling at the end of the hearing, which begins at 2:30 p.m.
If he declares the ban unconstitutional, state Atty. Gen. Bill Schuette is sure to ask a federal appeals court to issue a stay that keeps it from taking effect while he appeals. Friedman also could keep any ruling from taking immediate effect.
Rowse and DeBoer own a home jointly and are raising two adopted sons and a daughter, Michigan considers them two independent parents.
The women are challenging a same-sex marriage ban passed by voters in 2004 as a constitutional amendment, as well as state laws that limit adoption to individuals and married couples, while denying gay and lesbian couples the ability to marry.
On the other wise, Schuette argues in a Sept. 9 legal brief that "the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman" is necessary to "regulate sexual relationships" to encourage population growth.
The attorney general's filing also suggested that the way to seek a change is via a ballot initiative, not a court fight. "If Michigan’s definition of marriage is to be changed, and if joint unmarried adoptions are to be authorized, both should be done by the people of the State of Michigan," the brief says.
"Quite simply," it adds, "plaintiffs have chosen the wrong forum to effectuate the result they seek. It would be inappropriate for this court to impose its will on the people of the State of Michigan.”
Judge Friedman last July declined to dismiss the case, as Schuette requested.
Attorneys representing the nurses -- Dana Nessel of Detroit and Carole Stanyar of Plymouth -- today are asking for an on-the-spot summary judgment overturning the 2004 Michigan Marriage Amendment, which may be unlikely on such a far-reaching issue.
As Nessel suggests on her law firm's website: "It is very possible that our case will be the precedent-setting case that moves on to the United States Supreme Court and eventually makes marriage equality the law of the land for all 50 states."
