UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANSOUTHERN DIVISIONAPRIL DEBOER, individually and as parentand next friend of N.D.-R, R.D.-R., and J.D.-R,minors, and JAYNE ROWSE, individually and as parent and next friend of N.D.-R, R.D.-R., and J.D.-R, minors,Plaintiffs,Civil Action No. 12-CV-10285HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMANvs.RICHARD SNYDER, in his official capacity asGovernor of the State of Michigan, and BILL SCHUETTE, in his official capacity asMichigan Attorney General,Defendants. _________________________________________/
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse (“plaintiffs”) challenge a November 2004voter-approved amendment to the Michigan Constitution that prohibits same-sex marriage(hereinafter the “Michigan Marriage Amendment” or “MMA”), Mich. Const. Art. I, § 25. TheMichigan Marriage Amendment states: “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriageshall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Plaintiffs maintain that the MMA violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of theFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and they seek to enjoin state and -1-
county officials from enforcing the provision and its implementing statutes.
1
After reviewing the evidence presented at the trial, including the testimony of variousexpert witnesses, the exhibits, and stipulations, and after considering all of the legal issuesinvolved, the Court concludes that the MMA is unconstitutional and will enjoin its enforcement.
I.Background
The underlying facts of this case are straightforward. Plaintiffs are an unmarried same-sex couple residing in Hazel Park, Michigan. They have lived together for the past eight yearsand jointly own their residence. Both are state-licensed foster parents. DeBoer is a nurse in theneonatal intensive care unit at Hutzel Hospital and Rowse is an emergency room nurse at HenryFord Hospital, both located in Detroit. In November 2009, Rowse, as a single person, legallyadopted child N. In October 2011, also as a single person, she legally adopted child J. In April2011, DeBoer, as a single person, adopted child R. Unable to jointly adopt the three children, plaintiffs initially filed the instant action against the state defendants requesting that the Courtenjoin them from enforcing section 24 of the Michigan Adoption Code (hereinafter “section24”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 710.24, which restricts adoptions to either single persons or married couples. Plaintiffs claimed that section 24 violates the Equal Protection Clause because itimpermissibly discriminates against unmarried couples. In response, the state defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that, among other things, plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit.
1
The defendants in this matter are Michigan Governor Richard Snyder and AttorneyGeneral Bill Schuette (collectively the “state defendants”). Plaintiffs later added former Oakland County Clerk, Bill Bullard, Jr. as a party defendant, who was eventually replaced by hissuccessor in office, defendant Lisa Brown. Although Brown is named as a defendant in thismatter, she has adopted plaintiffs’ legal position challenging the MMA. -2-
The Court held a hearing on the state defendants’ motion and expressed reservations that plaintiffs did not possess the requisite standing to challenge section 24. The Court noted thatwhile plaintiffs made a colorable claim that they and their children were, in fact, injured by their ineligibility to petition for joint adoption, this injury was not traceable to defendants’enforcement of section 24. Rather, plaintiffs could not jointly adopt their children because theywere not married, and any legal form of same-sex union is prohibited by the MMA. The Courtconcluded the hearing by inviting plaintiffs to seek leave to amend their complaint to include achallenge to the MMA.Plaintiffs accepted the Court’s invitation and sought leave to amend their complaint,which the Court granted over defendants’ objection. The amended complaint included a second cause of action challenging the validity of the MMA on both due process and equal protectiongrounds. The state defendants then renewed their motion, this time to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court held the matter in abeyance and then denied the motion after the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013),invalidating section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“DOMA”).Thereafter, the parties both filed motions for summary judgment. The state defendants,in support of their argument that the MMA has legitimate purposes, offered the followingreasons for excluding same-sex couples from Michigan’s definition of marriage: (1) providingchildren with “biologically connected” role models of both genders that are necessary to foster healthy psychological development; (2) avoiding the unintended consequences that might resultfrom redefining marriage; (3) upholding tradition and morality; and (4) promoting the transitionof “naturally procreative relationships into stable unions.” Assuming that the appropriate level-3-