>> Michigan gay marriage ban struck down by judge
Les lois sur le mariage sont du ressort des Etats et une trentaine d’entre eux ont amendé leur Constitution pour y inclure l’interdiction du mariage gay, qui bénéficie pourtant d’un soutien de plus en plus large au sein de l’opinion publique américaine.
Dans le Michigan, au nord des Etats-Unis, c’est un couple de femmes, Jayne Rowse et April DeBoer, qui avait saisi la justice, s’estimant lésé précisément parce que l’interdiction du mariage homosexuel les empêche d’adopter des enfants ensemble, en tant que couple. Il leur était opposé le résultat d’un référendum de 2004 à l’issue duquel 59 % des électeurs avaient affirmé que le mariage dans l’Etat ne pouvait avoir lieu qu’entre un homme et une femme.
Le juge Bernard Friedman s’est insurgé contre l’idée selon laquelle les enfants élevés par des couples de même sexe « s’en sortent moins bien » que ceux qui ont grandi avec un père et une mère. Selon lui, l’interdiction du mariage gay est non seulement anticonstitutionnelle, elle met aussi en danger « l’équilibre des enfants ».
Le ministre républicain de la justice du Michigan, Bill Schuette, a immédiatement fait appel de la décision du juge Friedman. Sauf décision contraire par une cour supérieure, les mariages pourront reprendre dès lundi dans le Michigan.
Des juges fédéraux de Virginie, d’Utah, d’Oklahoma, d’Ohio, du Kentucky et du Texas ont récemment pris des décisions similaires, en faveur du mariage gay. Ces décisions font suite à celle de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis, qui a estimé en juin que les couples de même sexe avaient les mêmes droits en terme de protections ou d’allocations que les couples hétérosexuels.
>> Michigan’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge said Friday as he struck down a law that was widely embraced by voters a decade ago — the latest in a recent series of decisions overturning similar laws across the country.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman announced his ruling after a rare two-week trial that mostly focused on the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
There was no indication that the judge was suspending his decision. Attorney General Bill Schuette said he was immediately filing a request with a federal appeals court to suspend Friedman’s decision and prevent same-sex couples from immediately marrying. The decision was released shortly after 5 p.m., when most county clerk offices in Michigan were closed. Clerks issue marriage licenses.
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia issue licenses for same-sex marriage. Since December, bans on gay marriage have been overturned in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but appeals have put those cases on hold.
Two Detroit-area nurses, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, want to get married, but the original purpose of their 2012 lawsuit was to overturn Michigan’s ban on joint adoptions by same-sex couples.
They are raising three adopted children with special needs at their Hazel Park home. But they can’t jointly adopt each other’s kids because joint adoption in the state is tied exclusively to marriage.
Attorney Dana Nessel read portions of the decision on live TV at the kitchen table in the DeBoer-Rowse home.
“It’s unbelievable,” DeBoer said on television. “We got our day in court. We won.”
Rowse, 49, and DeBoer, 42, didn’t testify, and the trial had nothing to do with their relationship. In fact, attorneys for the state told the judge that they are great parents.
Instead, the state urged the judge to respect the results of a 2004 election in which 59 percent of voters said marriage in Michigan can only be between a man and a woman. Conservative scholars also questioned the impact of same-sex parenting on children.
But experts testifying for Rowse and DeBoer said there were no differences between the kids of same-sex couples and the children raised by a man and woman. And the University of Texas took the extraordinary step of disavowing the testimony of sociology professor Mark Regnerus, who was a witness for Michigan.
>> The moment Jayne Rowse and April BeBoer have waiting years for finally arrived Friday afternoon when a federal judge struck down Michigan’s constitutional ban on recognition of same-sex marriages.
Detroit ABC affiliate WXYZ was there to capture the moment at the couple’s kitchen table as their attorney, Dana Nessel, read portions of U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman’s decision finding that Michigan’s voter-approved constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage violated the U.S. Constitution.
“It’s unbelievable,” DeBoer, 42, said in the moments after hearing the decision. “We got our day in court. We won.”
The Associated Press notes that although the couple, who have been together more than a decade and have three adopted children, served as the plaintiffs in the landmark case, neither of the women, who are both nurses, testified in the trial.
Attorneys for the state reportedly told the judge that the women are loving, competent parents, but the state shouldn’t recognize their marriage — and subsequently, not allow both women to adopt each of their three children — because 59 percent of Michigan voters in 2004 approved the constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
But Judge Friedman, in a powerful and unequivocal ruling, wasn’t convinced by the state’s arguments.
“State defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people,” Friedman wrote. “No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples.”
“The popular origin of [marriage discrimination laws] does nothing to insulate the provision from constitutional scrutiny,” Freidman wrote in his ruling determining that the Michigan law violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause and promise of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
See the moment April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse learned that the state of Michigan must recognize their marriage and subsequently, their family.
