HRC Makes Judge Delay Michigan Lesbian’s Adoption and Same Sex Marriage Case – WTF?

Gay Inc

The other day we posted about two Detroit-area lesbian nurses April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse who are raising special needs children together and how they bravely filed a lawsuit to try to overturn restrictions on adoption by same-sex partners. But at the judge’s invitation, the case took an extraordinary turn when the judge invited them to also test the legality of the 2004 constitutional amendment that stipulates Michigan only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman.

Judge Bernard Friedman was all set to hear arguments in the case but fearing the possibility of a loss, any loss the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights sent amicus briefs to the judge asking that before resolving the Michigan couple’s case, “this Court may determine that it is prudent to await decision” in the California Proposition 8 case at the Supreme Court.

So now April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse who have waged this battle on their own and who also have been flatly denied help in any way by some of the organizations in question sit in limbo and wait denied their time in court by our own organizations because of of baseless fears, lack of backbone, and perhaps wanting to be the stars when the Prop 8 case wins. A case which THEY ALL were originally against.

Source: Buzzfeed

5 thoughts on “HRC Makes Judge Delay Michigan Lesbian’s Adoption and Same Sex Marriage Case – WTF?

  1. Neither the HRC nor anyone else could have made the Judge delay the case. It needed to be delayed because the law is going to be set by the Supreme Court in a couple of months. It would have been utterly irresponsible for the Judge to issue a decision that would have to be litigated all over again depending on the Supreme Court’s ruling.

  2. Actually if the judge did male a ruling either way it would have just been appealed and continued on and would have absolutely no bearing at all on the Supreme court case. HRC and the others had no right sticking thier noses into this case. Especially since they did not have a hand in or offer any assistance to the couple and thier special needs children all this time. Gay Inc, over-stepped thier boundaries. They should have approached the couple and worked with them on this instead of just pudhing forward without any condideration to them.

  3. Whether gay inc or not overstepped any boundaries, the judge would have been utterly stupid to rule while the Supreme Court is considering cases that will have direct bearing on the case before him. That is elementary juriprudence. Had the judge actually ruled on this case, it would either have immediately been struck down or rendered irrelevant. IF the Supreme Court does what we hope they will do–say that all cases involving homosexuality must be subject to heightened scrutiny–that will buttress any ruling that he makes. The Supreme Court could even go beyond that and give guidelines that can strike down constitutional amendments like those of Michigan. By making a premature ruling, the judge would just set up this couple for more grief and expense.

    Moreover, this is not the only case that has been stayed waiting for the Supreme Court ruling. Several cases in several circuits are on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That is the way our justice system works. District and Appellate Courts are supposed to follow the dictates of the Supreme Court.

    1. Actually if the judge ruled in favor on this case and it nulled MI’s anti-gay marriage amendment it would have been challanged to the next highest court .And would take years to play out anyway. And if he didn’t it is such a different type of case other than Prop 8 it would have no absolutely nobearing on a SCOTUS decision.

      The disturbong part of this sory is the way Gay Inc handled it. We are not talking about other cases at this moment. We are talking about this one.

  4. You are, of course, making the assumption that the Judge would have ruled in the way we want. If he ruled against the gay couple, maybe you would think that it would have been prudent to await the Supreme Court decision. It is possible that the Supreme Court will issue a sweeping decision, or at least one that holds that laws (and state constitutional amendments) involving homosexuality require heightened scrutiny. Such a ruling would give the judge far more legal authority to strike down Michigan’s constitutional amendment than he now has. (BTW, this Republican-appointed judge is the one who invalidated the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action admissions policy.)

What do you think?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.