DETROIT — In a case that could make Michigan the 18th state to legalize same-sex marriage, a plaintiffs lawyer Friday urged a federal judge to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage and eradicate once and for all of what he called a pervasive discriminatory practice.
“There is a well-emerged awareness that denial of the right to marry is a form of discrimination that our society can no longer tolerate,” attorney Ken Mogill said during closing arguments in Michigan’s landmark gay marriage trial. “Today, marriage … as a matter of law, is an entirely gender-neutral institution.”
Mogill stressed: “The right to marry is a fundamental right. It should apply regardless of sexual orientation.”
But the state argued the people have already spoken on this issue and that the decision of 2.7 million voters — which had nothing to do with animus, it contends — should stand.
“This was not the whim of a few. … This was the will of the people” Assistant State Attorney Kristin Heyse said in her closing argument, noting the issue is likely to go before voters again. “Why not let the people decide?”
She later added: “This case is about science, data, what’s best for children.”
The case involves two lesbian nurses who are trying to overturn Michigan’s ban on gay marriage, which voters approved in 2004 in defining marriage as being between one man and a woman.
The closing arguments — like the trial — focused largely on the topic of child outcomes and whether or not gays and lesbians can be good parents.
The plaintiffs argued the latter shouldn’t even be an issue because having kids isn’t a prerequisite to getting married.
“Marriage under our law is a civil contract, an institution based on mutual consent. There is no obligation to procreate or adopt,” argued Mogill.
“Moms and dads are different,” Heyse said. “Kids benefit by having both.”
Heyse also argued that same-sex parenting research is too new. “We’re just not sure if allowing gays to marry would stabilize families.”
The case is now in the hands of U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman. Unlike other judges across the country who have struck down gay-marriage bans, Friedman decided to have a trial on the issue, rather than make a decision based on just written arguments.
Friedman said he expects to have a decision in the next few weeks.
Heyse told Friedman that should he rule for the plaintiffs, the state would seek an injunction, because a “stay is imperative to preserve the status quo.”
