Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Michigan couple challenges state’s marriage equality ban in federal court

September 10, 2012

DeBoer Marriage Equality Trials

By Scottie Thomaston

A lesbian couple in Michigan in the middle of a federal case related to the state’s anti-gay adoption law was encouraged to amend their lawsuit to take on the state’s anti-marriage ban. In Michigan, there is a constitutional amendment which bans marriage equality. A George W. Bush-appointed federal judge encouraged the couple to take on the ban.

The couple has decided to amend the lawsuit and challenge the amendment:

The Detroit News illuminates the legal strategy plaintiff’s counsel are pursuing:

DeBoer and Rowse argue the state’s marriage amendment violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

The law, they say, excludes them from benefits and protections such as “support for family finances, and other public and private safety nets.”

Further, they say it’s unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to be married and that children of such couples should be allowed all of the protections and benefits — such as health care coverage — of heterosexual couples.

The women are asking the federal judge to stop Schuette and Snyder from “attempting to block same-sex couples’, including the adult plaintiffs’, attempts at securing a marriage license in any county of Michigan.”

Sara Wurfel, a spokeswoman for Snyder, said Friday the proper venue to challenge the marriage statute may be through the constitutional amendment process.

“The Michigan marriage amendment was a vote of the people adopted eight years ago,” she said.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker will continue to follow the developments in this new federal case, as well as those in Nevada’s federal marriage equality trial.

The case is DeBoer v. Snyder.

h/t Kathleen for these filings

Motion for leave to file amended complaint, with amended complaint attached as Exhibit A:2:12-cv-10285 #33

Amended Exhibit A (both of these appear to be the same):2:12-cv-10285 #34

3 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Julie Cason  |  September 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    These two women are quite courageous and are also– so far as I can confirm– on their own funding this battle. I was moved to pitch in for the legal battle and wanted to share the opportunity here too: http://deboerrowseadoptionfund.nesselandkessellaw

  • 2. grod  |  September 11, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Julie I agree. Originally seeking to jointly be the legal parents of three children, this amendment, encouraged by the judge, sees DeBoer and Rowse 'each appear individually and as parent and next friend of N.D.-R, R.D.-R., and J.D.-R,minors.' Their motivation is to ensure rights and benefits for their children.

  • 3. Eric  |  September 11, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Why don't these complaints include that marriage is a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny review and that exclusions from marriage need to have a compelling governmental interest, be narrowly tailored, and be as least restrictive as possible?

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!