Rainbow Law Center

RLC at the Michigan Supreme Court

Mary and Denise joined dozens of other LGBT and allied activists to pack the Michigan Supreme Court yesterday during oral arguments in the case Pride at Work v. Granholm.  The action was filed in 2005 by the ACLU of Michigan on behalf of 21 families in Ingham County Circuit Court seeking a declaratory ruling that Proposal 2, which amended the Michigan Constitution in November 2004 to prohibit gay marriage, allows public employers to offer health care insurance, otherwise called domestic partnership benefits, to lesbian and gay families.

The trial court got it right.  The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. 

Arguing on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellants was Deborah Labelle, ACLU of Michigan Cooperating Attorney.  She did an excellent job of both presenting the case for protecing Michigan families and responding to the questions (sometimes attacks) by the conservative majority on the bench.  Most of us think we will lose this case 4-3.  If we do, it is our sincere hope that the people of Michigan will introduce a ballot measure to reverse this awful result.  Most polls show that the people of Michigan did not intend this result when they voted to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

To read more about this important case, go to the ACLU of MI's website, here.

Family Law

One of the areas of law that in which I was fairly certain I would never practice was family law.  Then, in law school, I had a lesbian professor who taught my family law class and I saw it from a different perspective.  She helped me to see the importance of dedicated lawyers in this practice area.

Since Mary and I started Rainbow Law Center we've had occasion to take on a handful of family law cases. A recent case is illustrative.

We had a gay male client who had previously been in a heterosexual marriage which had produced 2 children.  Our client soon entered into a committed relationship with another man and they'd been together nearly 4 years when he brought his case to us.  The divorce decree granted the parents joint legal and shared physical custody.  Our client had regular and frequent parenting time with his children, every week (3 days a week).  Because of the shared nature of the physical custody, child support was considerably lower than it might have been with one parent having primary physical custody and the other getting only periodic visitation. 

In an apparent bid to increase her child support, our client's ex-wife filed a motion to modify parenting time.  The motion argued that our client's parenting time should be drastically reduced and offered his homosexuality as its only justification.  Our client's divorce decree prohibited "unrelated overnight guests" while either parent had the children for parenting time.  The lawyer for our client's ex-wife argued that our client's co-habitation with his same-sex partner violated that provision. Prior to our being retained, our client had a different lawyer and, in response to a similar motion from the other side, argued to have that clause stricken from the decree.  The referrer assigned to the case refused to strike the clause noting that our client's "lifestyle was predictable" at the time the agreement was entered into.

We filed a responsive motion and I argued our client's case in front of the same referrer assigned to the case.   Armed with research, case law, two dictionaries (Black's Law Dictionary and Webster's) and common sense I argued that such a provision was inapplicable to the current situation.  Our client had no unrelated overnight "guests" in his home during parenting time -- his partner was not a guest in his own home.  The referee was, I think, surprised but ultimately agreed.  The referee asked the other side what other circumstances they could offer that would give her grounds for modifying the parenting time and the other side again offered only his homosexuality.  My favorite line from the referee's decision: "Family Court does not discriminate against parents on the basis of their sexual orientation."

We won that case (although the other side may choose (and will probably choose) to object to it (similar to an appeal)).

Although we have other, similar cases to the one describe above, we also have other family law clients where we are helping to form families instead of fighting in divorce or custody actions.  We have clients where we are helping them to adopt or become pregnant with sperm donors.  That is very exciting and rewarding for us.

MI Supreme Court to hear SSDP case

The Michigan Supreme Court announced today that they have unanimously agreed to hear the ACLU's appeal of the Court of Appeals ruling holding that Michigan's so-called Marriage Amendment prohibits state owned institutions from offering health care and other benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Denise and Mary are members of Pride at Work - MI, one of the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  As such, Mary has agreed to help out in the writing of an amicus brief to the Court. 

Michigan has an ultra-conservative supreme court.  We don't hold out much hope for the lower court's ruling to be overturned.  However, there is a glimmer of hope in the argument that denying health care benefits to the citizens of this state was not what the voters, or even the organizers of the amendment, intended.  If that can be proven, rationality may yet prevail.

In deciding to take up the case, the Supreme Court denied a motion to stay the Court of Appeals decision on a seven to zero vote.

Put simply, the Michigan Supreme Court will now prepare to hear the appeal of February’s Court of Appeals decision. A final ruling may still be months in the making.

The law allows the public entities, such as Universities, to honor their commitments to provide agreed-upon benefits through the end of the calendar year, or through the end of the current contract for bargained-for employee groups. More information regarding this most recent action by the Supreme Court can be found here: http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=532.

Our children -- at risk

One of the distinctions of living in Michigan - especially in the Detroit metro area - is the existence of the Ruth Ellis Center.  As only one of a handful of shelters organized to support and help LGBTQ youth, the Center deserves our attention, financial and public support.

Last week, it received some national press in the New York Times.

DETROIT — One girl said she started living on the streets after her mother beat her for dressing like a boy. Another said she ran away from home after her father pulled a gun on her for hanging around with so many “tomboys.” A third said she left home after a family acquaintance raped her because she was a lesbian and he wanted to “straighten her out.”

But gathered at Ruth’s House, a 10-bed emergency shelter for gay homeless youths here in east Detroit, they all said that for the first time they felt safe.

Ruth’s House is one of a small number of shelters for gay youths that have opened around the nation in the past four years, reflecting an increasing awareness among child welfare advocates of the disproportionately high number of gay youths in the homeless population and the special problems they face.

As Ruth Ellis' homepage asks -- how many more have to suffer?

• Each year, 1.7 million youth experience homelessness, approximately 40% of those are LGBT.
• 30% of completed adolescent suicides are by LGBT youth.
• 50% of gay males experience negative reactions from their parents when they come out.
• 28% of LGBT youth drop out of school due to bullying.
• 93% of all youth have heard negative comments about LGBT youth, with 51% hearing those comments everyday.

Rally in Lansing -- SSDP Benefits

This past February the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled against public institutions' ability to offer same-sex domestic-partner benefits.

Michigan is the first state to rule this way and this discriminatory decision will continue to hurt families, their children and loved ones across the state if action is not taken. For more information on this issue, visit http://www.tri.org/protectourfamilies/index.html.

You can join others in protest and in support of legislation to overturn this ruling in a rally at the state capitol tomorrow, May 22 at 3:00 PM.  If you happen to be in Ann Arbor, you can catch a bus to Lansing at the Cube at 1:30.

See the attached flyer: Download ssdp_rally_flyer.pdf

2nd Parent Adoption Bill passes out of Judiciary

House Bill  4259, which we first discussed here has passed out of the Judiciary Committee (on May 9; we apologize for the delay in reporting - we had a death in the family) as we expected.

It is now up to the full House to vote.  NGLTF is asking Michigan residents to E-mail House Speaker Andy Dillon.  We endorse that request.  Their suggested letter:

Dear Speaker Dillon:

I am writing to ask you to support House Bill 4259, commonly referred to as the Second Parent Adoption Bill. Second parent adoption provides children being raised by unmarried parents the legal, financial and psychological protections that two parents provide.

According to the U.S. Children’s Bureau, there are 100,000 children in foster care who have a goal of adoption or whose parents’ rights have been terminated but who have no adoption resource. In February 2007, Michigan had more than 6,000 children waiting to be adopted, 41 percent of whom were older than 10. The older the waiting child, the less likely he or she is to be adopted; indeed, these children are more likely to “graduate” from foster care than to ever live in loving families. In Michigan, for example, nearly 80 percent of those who enter foster care at age 12 or older will leave the system without returning to their original homes and without being adopted (U.S. Children’s Bureau, 2005). These children suffer from high rates of homelessness, poverty, substance abuse and early pregnancy. These children need permanent homes not just until they turn 18, but for their lifetimes.

The emotional and social costs to children who never have permanent families are enormous. So too are the costs to the taxpayer. Adoption is much less expensive than foster care. Richard Barth and his colleagues recently released a study showing that governments save $35,800 per child for every 100 foster care cases closed for adoption over the first eight years, compared to the expense of keeping those kids in foster care (Barth, Lee, Wildfire & Guo, 2005). Because of the number of children in foster care and needing permanent homes, adoption laws must be expanded so that more families can become adoptive parents.

Michigan’s current economic crisis mandates its decisionmakers to find ways to save the state money and protect its most vulnerable. This bill does just that.

The Evan P. Donaldson Institute published a study that found that same-sex couples provide healthy, loving homes when they adopt and can therefore be a valuable resource in expanding the pool of prospective parents for waiting children.

Michigan’s chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, the Michigan Association of Infant Mental Health, Spaulding for Children, the Michigan Women’s Commission and the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Section, to name a few, all support House Bill 4259.

Second parent adoptions are in children’s best interest. Please support the right of all children to have two parents by voting for House Bill 4259.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

Lobby for our Families

Today Mary and Denise attended training for the advocacy of our families, sponsored by Triangle and Coalition for Adoptive Rights Equality (CARE).  At our training session we discussed the status of Michigan House Bill 4259, an initiative that would remove the legal ambiguity and hostility toward second parent adoption by adding the words: Two unmarried persons may petition to adopt a child by filing a petition under this section. In support of that legislation, CARE is sponsoring a Lobby Day in Lansing on Tuesday, May 1. We will attend and lobby our very conservative representative and senator.  We hope to see you there.

To learn more, either visit CARE's site, or download this informative booklet: Download 2PA__Briefing_Book_4_07.doc