By Jane Bassett
Since last summer when Windsor was decided by the United States Supreme Court, it seems that we have seen one court decision or executive policy change per week that overturns a marriage ban or moves federal policy closer to full recognition of marriages. This is an incredible time that we live in.
The case brought by Jayne and April in Michigan (Deboer v Snyder) is different from the cases we have seen around the country in two different respects. First, it started off as a challenge to Michigan's barriers to second parent adoption, and evolved to include marriage. Second, it has resulted in a full trial rather than a decision based on written expert reports and affidavits. Those of us who have been sitting in the courtroom listening to the attorneys' arguments, plaintiffs' expert testimony, the objections of the assistant attorney generals, and the rulings of Judge Friedman have had a lot to digest. It sometimes feels more like watching a ping-pong game than a process that will conclude with a decision that directly and profoundly affects individuals and families.
In speaking with others who are sharing this experience, many who have been around to see so much of the history of the LGBT community bounce between: "Yes, it is about time!" and a resigned, "Do you think the Judge might let the ban stand?" The younger people more often express disbelief that we even have to have a trial, because the whole thing is a no-brainer. The judge is cautious not to tip his hand, and has taken many of the issues raised by either side "under advisement," delaying a decision until the testimony is all laid out. He is a veteran judge, and knows full the importance of allowing each side their full opportunity to make a record that, without doubt, will be headed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Having been in front of a variety of judges in my career, many whom could not be bothered with niceties, I am grateful for his approach.
The atmosphere at the courthouse and in the streets has been cordial. Judge Friedman has been welcoming to all the onlookers, has taken time to give courthouse history during lulls in the testimony and explain procedure for those who are visitors. He is always gracious, yet there is a subtle change to his tone of voice when he needs to be authoritative with the participants. The security at the courthouse is thorough, although respectful to all of the people. Even the protestors outside, walking back and forth with their "Traditional Marriage" message placards, have not been hostile. I even drew a couple of "good mornings" from them as I passed each day. It seems odd that they would fight against others who want the same thing they value – a traditional marriage.
On my way to the car one day, a forty-something couple passing by the courthouse asked me, pointing at the protestors, "what do you think of all this?" Twenty years ago, I would have probably glanced away and hurried to my car, not ever fully thinking through whether or not I was more scared of striking up a conversation with cigarette smoking strangers in downtown Detroit, or revealing something about myself that could put me in bodily danger. This time I smiled and said, "Everyone deserves to be treated equally, and everyone deserves to be happy. It is about time that marriage was available to everyone." The woman said, "Yea, you're right. My two daughters are lesbians and I have a gay nephew. They deserve to marry and be happy." We smiled in the unity of our viewpoints and wished each other a blessed day.
I don't know how this trial will come out. No one does at this point. It is likely that it will be appealed to the Sixth Circuit no matter who wins. However, my conversation with these two people shored up my already growing belief: I am confident that win, lose or draw in this particular battle, we have, in fact, already won. It just hasn't been written down fully in the law books yet.
