News
Will the 6th Circuit allow Michigan marriages to continue?
Weddings halted until at least Wednesday, but no decision on stay pending appeal
The Sixth Circuit will consider whether to stay marriages in Michigan this week. (Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons)
Marriage equality advocates are watching the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals this week as it decides whether to stay same-sex weddings in Michigan or allow them to continue as the court considers marriage equality litigation.
Experts say the Sixth Circuit — and the Supreme Court if the stay request is appealed — have room to allow the Michigan same-sex weddings to continue because the Supreme Court’s stay on weddings following a similar ruling in Utah isn’t controlling and many district courts have now ruled in favor of marriage equality.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, was among those saying he doesn’t believe a stay is warranted in the case, known as DeBoer v. Snyder.
“The Supreme Court did not explain the reasons for its stay in the Utah case, so it provides little guidance and certainly should not be construed as requiring stays in other cases,” Minter said. “Utah was the first federal court in the country to strike down a state marriage ban post-Windsor, but many others have since followed suit, so the legal landscape is already quite different than when the Supreme Court issued a stay in that case.”
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, a Reagan appointee, issued the ruling striking down Michigan’s 2004 constitutional ban on same-sex marriages on Friday, but unlike similar rulings against laws in Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma, Friedman didn’t include a stay in his ruling.
Vickie Henry, a senior staff attorney at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders who helped plaintiffs for the Michigan trial, said the lack of a stay from the judge came as no surprise given the concern he stated in his ruling for children raised by same-sex couples.
“At this point, all the recent decisions have all come out the same way,” Henry said. “So at some point I think you recognize there’s a high human cost, a high people cost, in the denial of these rights. I can’t speculate what he was thinking, but that seems like a great reason to not enter a stay.”
But Attorney General Bill Schuette filed a stay request before the Sixth Circuit to halt the same-sex marriages in Michigan as he and Gov. Rick Snyder filed notice they would file an appeal to the court.
After allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to the stay request by Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit issued a temporary stay on the same-sex weddings until at least Wednesday — but only after an estimated 315 gay couples received marriage licenses on Saturday.
A similar situation has happened before just recently. After U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah’s marriage ban in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert, Gov. Gary Herbert sought a stay request from the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court denied the stay, but the Supreme Court later instituted it after U.S. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor referred the matter to the entire bench.
Henry said she thinks the same outcome won’t necessarily befall Michigan despite the stay from the Supreme Court in the Utah case.
“It’s not directly controlling,” Henry said. “In other words, the Sixth Circuit’s not bound by it, but it’s certainly suggestive to the court of what at least one member of the Supreme Court would want them to do.”
Equality Michigan is circulating a petition calling on Snyder and Schuette to drop their appeal of the ruling. As of Monday afternoon, the petition had more than 10,000 signatures.
“We must end the second-class treatment of LGBT families in Michigan,” the petition states. “Rather than siding with the people of Michigan, Schuette and Snyder are wasting taxpayer dollars defending a ban on marriage equality that harms Michigan families — and that the people of Michigan no longer even want.”
But now that the Michigan case has been appealed, all four states in the Sixth Circuit — Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky — have marriage equality cases before the appeals court.
The Sixth Circuit has ruled on an LGBT-relevant case before, but the outcome and the precedent it set wasn’t favorable to LGBT people.
In the case of Equality Federation v. Cincinnati, the court in 1996 upheld an anti-gay ordinance in Cincinnati forbidding the city from enforcing civil rights ordinances based on sexual orientation. The judges issued this decision despite the Supreme Court ruling in 1992 in Romer v. Evans, which found that a similar measure, Colorado’s Amendment 2, was unconstitutional.
But the Cincinnati ordinance has since been repealed in 2004, and that ruling was delivered years ago before the Supreme Court issued precedent protecting gay people in Lawrence and Windsor.
If the Sixth Circuit denies a stay, state officials could appeal the stay request to the Supreme Court justice responsible for stays in the Sixth Circuit: U.S. Associate Justice Elena Kagan. In that event, Kagan could refer the request to the entire court. If she declines a stay on her own, the state could ask any justice on the court for a stay, including anti-gay U.S. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.
Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, expressed uncertainty about whether the Supreme Court would take similar action as it did with the Utah same-sex marriages.
“The Supreme Court did not explain why they issued the stay in Kitchen previously, however, so there is no way of knowing for sure what motivated them to do that or whether a majority of them would do the same thing in the face of the tidal wave of decisions in favor of marriage equality that we are seeing in the lower courts,” Davidson said.
Not all legal experts foresee a possibility in which neither the Sixth Circuit nor the Supreme Court would refuse to grant a stay on same-sex weddings.
Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, predicted the Supreme Court would continue to issue stays on same-sex marriages throughout the country until it delivers it final determination on same-sex marriage.
“My view is that the Supreme Court will continue to grant stays until they resolve a case on the merits,” Hunter said. “Earliest that is likely to happen is June 2015.”
In the event a stay is granted by either the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court, another question would emerge similar to the situation in Utah: Would the federal government and state of Michigan recognize the same-sex marriages already conducted in the state?
In Utah, the decision was split. Herbert announced that his state wouldn’t recognize the estimated 1,300 same-sex marriages conducted in Utah pending the final outcome of the litigation. But U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Obama administration would consider those marriages valid for the purposes of federal benefits. Several state attorneys general, including Maryland’s Doug Gansler, announced their states would also recognize the marriages.
According to the Associated Press, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is holding off on the determination on whether his state will recognize the unions. His spokesperson is quoted as saying the governor will wait for a stay decision to be reached before deciding whether Michigan will recognize the marriages.
Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum and East Lansing Mayor Nathan Triplett, who performed same-sex marriages in Michigan over the weekend, sent a letter Monday to Holder insisting the federal government should recognize those unions.
“Many of the couples that were married on March 22 waited decades for that opportunity,” Byrum and Triplett write. “Their marriages complied with Judge Friedman’s order and all relevant provisions of Michigan law and should be recognized as such by state and federal authorities without delay.”
The Justice Department didn’t yet have a definitive answer in response to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on whether the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages performed in Michigan.
“We are closely monitoring the situation,” said Allison Price, a Justice Department spokesperson.
District of Columbia
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
Health center set to celebrate 40th anniversary of legal services program
Whitman-Walker Health, the D.C.-based community healthcare center that specializes in HIV/AIDS and LGBTQ-related health services, announced it will present its annual Dale Edwin Sanders Award for Pro Bono Excellence to the international law firm McDermott Will & Schulte at a May 6 ceremony.
“This year’s award is especially significant as it coincides with the 40th anniversary of Whitman-Walker Health’s Legal Services Program, marking it as the nation’s longest running medical-legal partnership,” a statement released by Whitman-Walker says.
“As a national leader in public health, Whitman-Walker celebrates our partnership with McDermott to strengthen the health center and to enable Whitman-Walker to reach more medical and legal clients,” the statement adds.
“McDermott’s firm-wide commitment to Whitman-Walker’s medical-legal partnership demonstrates a shared vision to serve those most in need,” Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker’s director of Legal Services, says in the statement. “Our work protects individuals and families who face discrimination and hostility as they navigate increasingly complex administrative systems,” Nelson said.
“Pro bono legal services – like that of McDermott Will & Schulte – find solutions for people who have no place else to turn in the face of financial and health threats,” she added.
“Our partnership with Whitman-Walker Health is a treasured commitment to serving our neighbors and communities,” Steven Schnelle, one of the law firm’s partners said in the statement. “We are deeply moved by Whitman-Walker’s unwavering dedication to inclusion, respect, and equitable access to health care and social services,” he said.
The statement notes that the award for Pro Bono Excellence honors the legacy of the late gay attorney Dale Edwin Sanders. It says Sanders’s pro bono legal work for Whitman-Walker clients “shaped HIV/AIDS law for more than four decades by securing key victories on behalf of individuals whose employment and patient rights were violated.”
It says the Whitman-Walker Legal Services program began during the early years of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s at a time when people with AIDS faced widespread discrimination and often needed legal assistance. According to the statement, the program evolved over the years and expanded to advocate for transgender people and immigrants.
Whitman-Walker spokesperson Lisa Amore said the presentation of the Dale Edwin Sanders Pro Bono Excellency Award will be held at the May 6 fundraising benefit for Whitman-Walker’s Legal Services Program. She said the event will take place at the offices of the DC law firm Baker McKenzie and ticket availability can be accessed here: https://www.whitman-walker.org/gtem-2026/
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Eswatini4 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
National4 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
