Michigan Senate Committee Reviews Proposal to Remove Dormant Same-Sex Marriage Ban From Constitution

Senate Democrats Advance Resolution to Strip Unenforceable Marriage Ban

LANSING — Michigan Senate Democrats held a Thursday hearing on a resolution that would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to permanently remove the state's dormant ban on same-sex marriage from the Constitution.

The measure, Senate Joint Resolution F, sponsored by Democratic Senator Jeremy Moss of Bloomfield Township, would amend the state Constitution to delete the language limiting marriage to one man and one woman that was added by voters in 2004.

The ban has been inoperative since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down same-sex marriage bans nationwide in 2015. It remains on the books because Michigan's Constitution requires a voter-approved ballot question to remove it.

Why Remove a Ban That's Already Dead?

State Senator Jeremy Moss explained the rationale for pursuing removal of the dormant language. He noted that same-sex marriage is now a settled legal question in Michigan and across the country, and the state Constitution should reflect that reality.

"These marriages have now been solidified for 10 years and they contribute to neighborhood stability, school stability, family stability," Moss said during the committee hearing.

Moss also expressed concern about potential shifts at the U.S. Supreme Court. While the justices have not recently signaled willingness to overturn their 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, some justices have indicated openness to reconsidering rulings on civil rights issues.

Testimony from Same-Sex Marriage Advocates

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a lesbian couple who successfully challenged Michigan's marriage ban in the U.S. Supreme Court, testified in support of the resolution.

"We don't want to go back to being second-class citizens," DeBoer said. "We don't want other people to feel like their second-class citizens. Our marriage in the past 10 years has not affected anybody but us. It has done no harm to anybody."

DeBoer and Rowse became nationally known when their case was consolidated with other marriage equality cases and argued before the Supreme Court. Their victory legalized same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

What It Would Take to Get the Question on the Ballot

While the Senate committee hearing advanced the discussion, getting the question to voters would require significant legislative support.

Senate Joint Resolution F would need two-thirds votes in both chambers of the Legislature to be placed on the ballot. That means Democratic support in the Senate and Republican support in the House.

The House GOP caucus is currently divided on the issue. During a separate hearing earlier this year, House Speaker Matt Hall of Richland Township called a similar resolution "very divisive" within the Republican caucus, and promptly referred it to a committee where it received no further action.

Current Landscape of Same-Sex Marriage in Michigan

According to 2020 U.S. Census data, there were 13,875 married same-sex couples in Michigan. State data from 2023, the most recent year available, shows same-sex couples accounted for about 3 percent of Michigan marriages.

Another 12,306 same-sex couples reportedly lived together but were not married, according to the committee hearing materials.

Broader Context of Dormant Civil Rights Language

The proposal to repeal Michigan's same-sex marriage ban is part of a broader effort by Michigan Democrats to remove dormant civil rights language from the state Constitution that could potentially be resurrected by courts.

In 2023, the Legislature repealed a 1931 state abortion ban even though Michigan voters had approved a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights in the prior year.

Committee Action and Next Steps

The Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee did not vote on the resolution during Thursday's hearing. The measure remains in committee pending further action by Democratic lawmakers.

For the resolution to advance, it would need to be sent to the full Senate floor for a vote, where it would require a two-thirds majority to pass. The House would then need to take up the measure, also requiring a two-thirds vote for it to proceed to the ballot.

The timeline for getting the question on the ballot would depend on the legislative calendar and availability for a statewide vote.