# Same-sex marriage in Michigan

"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive; see [[WP:SDNONE]]
Part of the LGBTQ rights series :
Legal status of same-sex unions :
Marriage
Andorra
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Denmark
Ecuador
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Recognized
Israel
United States:
 • American Samoa :
Civil unions or registered partnerships but not marriage
Bolivia
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Monaco
Montenegro
San Marino
United Kingdom:
 • Bermuda
 • Cayman Islands :
Minimal recognition
Bulgaria
Cambodia
China
 • Hong Kong
India
Japan
Lithuania
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands:
 • Sint Maarten
Poland
Romania
Slovakia :
See also
Same-sex union legislation
Same-sex union court cases
Timeline of same-sex marriage
Recognition of same-sex unions in Africa
Recognition of same-sex unions in Asia
Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe
Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas
Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania
Marriage privatization
Divorce of same-sex couples
Domestic partnership
Military policy
Adoption
Listings by country
LGBTQ rights by country or territory :
Notes
1 2 Performed in the Netherlands proper (including the Caribbean Netherlands), as well as in Aruba and Curaçao. May be registered in Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed.
↑ Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands.
↑ Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories.
1 2 Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
↑ Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
1 2 3 4 5 The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling.
↑ A "declaration of family relationship" is available in several of Cambodia's communes which may be useful in matters such as housing, but is not legally binding.
↑ Guardianship agreements, conferring some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care.
↑ Inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
↑ Courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.
↑ Some cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding.
↑ Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse recognized for residency rights.
↑ Hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status.
1 2 Not yet in effect. :
LGBTQ portal :
vte :
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Michigan since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. On March 21, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples unconstitutional. More than 300 same-sex couples married in Michigan the next day before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed enforcement of the district court's decision. On November 6, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and upheld Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's ruling and legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the United States on June 26.
Michigan had previously banned the recognition of same-sex unions in any form after a popular vote added an amendment to the Constitution of Michigan in 2004. A statute enacted in 1996 also banned both the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. In 2023, various politicians expressed their intention to introduce legislation repealing the defunct constitutional ban on same-sex unions. Polling suggests that a large majority of Michiganders support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

## Legal history
### Statutes

In June 1995, the Michigan House of Representatives voted 88–14 to ban same-sex marriage in the state, and the Michigan State Senate voted 31–2 in favor. That same month, the House approved by a 74–28 vote a bill banning recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. The Senate also approved this bill. Governor John Engler signed both bills into law.
In June 2023, Representative Jason Morgan introduced legislation to the Michigan Legislature to amend all gendered marital references in state statutes and repeal the statutory ban on same-sex marriages.

### Constitutional amendment

In 2004, voters approved a constitutional amendment, Michigan Proposal 04-2, that banned same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state. It passed with 58.6% of the vote. The Michigan Supreme Court later ruled that public employers in Michigan could not grant domestic partnership benefits given the restrictions imposed by the amendment.
Following the 2022 elections, in which the Democratic Party won full control of the state government for the first time since 1983, some Democratic lawmakers said they were considering introducing a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2004 ban. Representative Jeremy Moss said, "Regardless of what happens with Obergefell in the future – which obviously, there is a threat it could be overturned – right now, we have unconstitutional language in our Constitution. […] We should be working now, as we should have been working, to repeal the language in our constitution that bans marriage equality." Attorney General Dana Nessel said she would push for such an amendment to be passed and placed on the ballot for approval by voters. In June 2023, Representative Morgan introduced a constitutional amendment to codify same-sex marriage in the Michigan Constitution and repeal the 2004 ban. Morgan said, "No couple in our state should live with the fear that their marriage could be put into jeopardy. While marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently protected through a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, the overturning of Roe v. Wade has made it clear how precarious our rights truly are. I am so excited to be marrying the love of my life, Jon, this year, and I will not rest until we protect the right to marriage for every couple in Michigan." The measure requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Michigan Legislature and approval by voters.

### Lawsuits
#### DeBoer v. Snyder

On January 23, 2012, a lesbian couple filed a lawsuit, DeBoer v. Snyder, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, challenging the state's ban on adoption by same-sex couples. In August 2012, Judge Bernard A. Friedman invited the couple to amend their suit to challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage, "the underlying issue". On March 7, 2013, Friedman announced that he would delay ruling pending the outcome of two same-sex marriage cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Friedman held a trial from February 25 to March 7, 2014. On March 21, he ruled for the plaintiffs, ending Michigan's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. Attorney General Bill Schuette immediately filed an emergency motion requesting a stay of the ruling.
Four of Michigan's 83 county clerks opened their offices on Saturday, March 22, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Barbara Byrum of Ingham County, Nancy Waters of Muskegon County, Lisa Brown of Oakland County, and Lawrence Kestenbaum of Washtenaw County. The four counties issued 323 marriage licenses to same-sex couples that day. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed enforcement of Friedman's ruling that same day, and stayed the ruling indefinitely on March 25. On March 28, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would recognize the validity of the same-sex marriages licensed on March 22.
On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and upheld Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. The case was later incorporated into Obergefell v. Hodges and decided along with several other Sixth Circuit court cases related to the legality of state bans on same-sex marriage. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States. The court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee same-sex couples the right to marry. Governor Snyder issued the following statement, "Our state government will follow the law and our state agencies will make the necessary changes to ensure that we will fully comply.", and Attorney General Schuette said the state would "honor, respect and uphold the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States". Representative Debbie Dingell said, "Love is love. It's not ours to judge. Today the Supreme Court affirmed that individuals can love whomever they choose. I'm simply happy for my friends, April and Jayne, who have five wonderful children they want to be able to adopt and love. I can't wait to attend their wedding." State Senator Jim Ananich called it a "great day for everyone who believes in equal rights", and Representative Sander Levin said it was a "historic day, reflecting what each of us knows in our hearts and within our communities, we are all equal and should be able to marry who we love." Representatives Brenda Lawrence and John Conyers also welcomed the court decision. The Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate, Arlan Meekhof, said he was "disappointed" and "concerned by the Court's decision to disregard states' rights in favor of the federal government". Michigan's Catholic bishops released a statement that the ruling would "have a significant ripple effect upon the first amendment right to religious liberty".

#### Caspar v. Snyder

Eight same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit in U.S. district court on July 25, 2014, seeking recognition of their so-called "window marriages" established on March 21 and 22, 2014 before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the district court's ruling in DeBoer. The state had asked the district court to suspend proceedings pending final resolution of DeBoer or to find those marriages invalid. On January 15, 2015, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith ruled that the state must recognize those marriages, but stayed implementation of his ruling for 21 days. He wrote: "In these circumstances, what the state has joined together, it may not put asunder." On February 4, Governor Rick Snyder announced that the state would recognize those marriages and would not appeal the decision.

#### Carrick v. Snyder

In January 2015, Pastor Neil Patrick Carrick of Detroit brought a case, Carrick v. Snyder, against Michigan, arguing that the state's ban of same-sex marriage and polygamy violated the Free Exercise and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The case was dismissed for lack of standing in February 2016.

## Developments after legalization

In December 2024, Representative Josh Schriver called for the criminalization of same-sex marriage, adding that "[t]his is not remotely controversial, nor extreme." His statement was widely criticized; "Please explain how dissolving my marriage, or that of the hundreds of thousands of other same-sex couples living in America, provides a benefit to your constituents or anyone else. You're not interested in helping Michiganders. You want only to hurt those you hate. Shame on you," said Attorney General Dana Nessel. Polling suggests that a large majority of Michiganders support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Referring to these opinion polls, the LGBTQ Nation and The Independent newspapers wrote that "Schriver's desire to criminalize [same-sex marriage] would be both controversial and extreme".

## Native American nations

Same-sex marriage is legal on the reservations of the Bay Mills Indian Community, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, five federally recognized Ojibwe tribes. The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians was the first Native American tribe to legalize same-sex marriage in Michigan when its Tribal Council voted to legalize in March 2013. The Tribal Chairman, Dexter McNamara, signed the legislation on March 15, 2013, and the first couple, Tim LaCroix and Gene Barfield, were married near Harbor Springs that same day. The Tribal Code states: "Marriage means the legal and voluntary union of two persons to the exclusion of all others". The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Tribal Council voted in November 2014 to hold a non-binding referendum on legalizing same-sex marriage on the reservation. The referendum was held on December 13, 2014, and passed with 54% of the vote. Provisions permitting same-sex marriages to be performed were included into the Tribal Code after the Tribal Council approved the changes on June 6, 2015. The Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians legalized same-sex marriage on July 7, 2015, and the Bay Mills Executive Council approved a marriage ordinance permitting same-sex marriages to be solemnized on their reservation on July 8, 2019.
Same-sex marriage has also been legal on the reservation of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians since May 8, 2013. The first same-sex marriage was performed for Daniel Hossler and Enrico Perez in Dowagiac on June 20, 2013. Same-sex marriage has also been legal in the Hannahville Indian Community since August 3, 2015, and the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi since March 16, 2023.
While there are no records of same-sex marriages as understood from a Western perspective being performed in Native American cultures, there is evidence for identities and behaviours that may be placed on the LGBT spectrum. Many of these cultures recognized two-spirit individuals who were born male but wore women's clothing and performed everyday household work and artistic handiwork which were regarded as belonging to the feminine sphere. This two-spirit status allowed for marriages between two biological males or two biological females to be performed in some of these tribes. Potawatomi society has traditionally recognized two-spirit individuals, known as mnedokwé (pronounced, plural: mnedokwék), who "sought out female company" from an early age, possessed the "work skills" of both sexes, "talked like women", and were regarded as "esteemed persons with special spiritual powers". Ruth Landes reported in 1970 that they were "said to possess visions…but not to practice sorcery. [Mnedokwék] exemplified a distinct category of 'power'." Two-spirit people are known in the Ojibwe language as niizh manidoowag (pronounced). Many were wives in polygynous households.

## Demographics and marriage statistics

Data from the 2000 U.S. census showed that 15,368 same-sex couples were living in Michigan. By 2005, this had increased to more than 22,000 couples, likely attributed to same-sex couples' growing willingness to disclose their partnerships on government surveys. Same-sex couples lived in all counties of the state. Most couples lived in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties, but the county with the highest percentage of same-sex couples was Washtenaw (0.7% of all county households). Same-sex partners in Michigan were on average younger than opposite-sex partners, and more likely to be employed. However, the average and median household incomes of same-sex couples were lower than different-sex couples, and same-sex couples were also far less likely to own a home than opposite-sex partners. 18% of same-sex couples in Michigan were raising children under the age of 18, with an estimated 7,800 children living in households headed by same-sex couples in 2005.
2019 estimates from the United States Census Bureau showed that there were 23,727 same-sex households in Michigan, representing about 0.6% of all households in the state. The bureau estimated that 53% of same-sex couples in the state were married. The 2020 U.S. census showed that there were 13,875 married same-sex couple households (5,518 male couples and 8,357 female couples) and 12,306 unmarried same-sex couple households in Michigan.

## Domestic partnerships

In May 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the amendment added to the State Constitution in 2004 banned not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but also public employee domestic partnership benefits such as health insurance. The ruling, however, had little effect since most public employers relaxed their eligibility criteria to avoid violating the amendment's restrictions.
On September 15, 2011, the Michigan House of Representatives voted 64–44 to approve a bill that would have banned most public employers, though not colleges and universities, from offering health care benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. It did not apply to workers whose benefits are established by the Michigan Civil Service Commission. On December 7, 2011, the Michigan State Senate approved the bill in a 27–9 vote. On December 22, 2011, Governor Rick Snyder signed the legislation into law. Five same-sex couples challenged the law in Bassett v. Snyder. On June 28, 2013, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its law banning local governments and school districts from offering health care benefits to their employees' domestic partners. He wrote: "It is hard to argue with a straight face that the primary purpose—indeed, perhaps the sole purpose—of the statute is other than to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. But that can never be a legitimate governmental purpose". He rejected the state's arguments that "fiscal responsibility" was the law's rationale. On February 14, 2014, the state asked him to lift that preliminary injunction, repeating its arguments about the "fiscal insecurity of local governments" and eliminating "irrational and unfair" local programs. On November 12, 2014, Judge Lawson issued a permanent injunction barring the state from enforcing this law.
While there are no statewide recognition, these local governments recognize domestic partnerships: Ann Arbor, Detroit, East Lansing, and Kalamazoo, as well as Ingham, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties.

## Public opinion

Public opinion for same-sex marriage in Michigan :
| Poll source | Dates administered | Sample size | Margin of error | Support | Opposition | Do not know / refused |
| Public Religion Research Institute | March 9 – December 7, 2023 | 715 adults | ? | 69% | 27% | 4% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | March 11 – December 14, 2022 | ? | ? | 68% | 30% | 2% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | March 8 – November 9, 2021 | ? | ? | 70% | 28% | 2% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | January 7 – December 20, 2020 | 1,670 adults | ? | 67% | 29% | 4% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | April 5 – December 23, 2017 | 2,348 adults | ? | 63% | 29% | 8% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | May 18, 2016 – January 10, 2017 | 2,997 adults | ? | 56% | 36% | 8% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | April 29, 2015 – January 7, 2016 | 2,379 adults | ? | 54% | 38% | 8% |
| Public Religion Research Institute | April 2, 2014 – January 4, 2015 | 1,670 adults | ? | 55% | 37% | 8% |
| New York Times/CBS News/YouGov | September 20 – October 1, 2014 | 2,560 likely voters | ± 2.4% | 47% | 39% | 14% |
| EPIC-MRA | September 25–29, 2014 | 600 adults | ± 4.0% | 47% | 47% | 6% |
| EPIC-MRA | May 17–20, 2014 | 600 likely voters | ± 4.0% | 47% | 46% | 7% |
| Marketing Resource Group of Lansing | March 2014 | ? | ? | 45% | 50% | 5% |
| State of the State Survey | December 16, 2013 – February 10, 2014 | 1,008 adults | ± 3.1% | 54% | 36% | <0.5% |
| Glengariff Group Inc. | January 29 – February 1, 2014 | 600 likely voters | ± 4.0% | 56% | 34% | <0.5% |
| EPIC-MRA | May 17–20, 2013 | 600 likely voters | ± 4.0% | 51% | 41% | 8% |
| Glengariff Group Inc. | May 8–10, 2013 | 600 voters | ± 4.0% | 57% | 38% | 5% |
| State of the State Survey | June 12 – August 13, 2012 | 1,015 adults | ? | 56% | 39% | 5% |
| Public Policy Polling | May 24–27, 2012 | 500 voters | ± 4.4% | 41% | 45% | 14% |
| Glengariff Group Inc. | May 10–11, 2012 | 600 likely voters | ± 4.0% | 44% | 44% | 12% |
| Public Policy Polling | July 21–24, 2011 | 593 voters | ± 4.0% | 33% | 53% | 14% |
| Glengariff Group Inc. | January 2011 | ? | ? | 39% | 50% | 11% |
| State of the State Survey | 2010 | ? | ? | 48% | 51% | 1% |
| Glengariff Group Inc. | October 2004 | ? | ? | 24% | 61% | 15% |