7 Michigan Republicans push to ban gay marriage. It’s likely going nowhere
- Seven Michigan House Republicans back resolution to condemn ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, reaffirm dormant ban
- House GOP leader calls resolution ‘divisive,’ Democrats and other LGBTQ allies blast it as out of touch
- Michigan still has a same-sex marriage ban on the books that is dormant because of the 2015 US Supreme Court decision
LANSING — A request for US Supreme Court Justices to revisit the legality of same-sex marriage may not go anywhere in Michigan, but that isn’t stopping Rep. Josh Schriver from trying.
The Oxford Republican on Tuesday called on the nation’s highest court to overturn its own 2015 decision and introduced a resolution to “condemn” the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
“Marriage belongs to one man and one woman,” Schriver said in prepared remarks at a press conference where he did not allow questions. “This is a biological necessity to preserve and grow our human race.”
His effort appears doomed: Only six other Republicans signed onto the nonbinding resolution as cosponsors, and a top House GOP leader called it a “divisive” issue the chamber is not likely to act on.
But Democrats, LGBTQ community members and allies widely decried it as a waste of time, energy and taxpayer funds while renewing calls for a ballot drive to strike a dormant same-sex marriage ban from the state Constitution.
Same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in 2015 under a Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges. Michigan Democrats have since added anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ individuals to the state’s civil rights act and banned the controversial practice of conversion therapy.
Related:
- Historic day for LGBTQ rights, as anti-discrimination bill goes to Whitmer
- Michigan set to become 22nd state to ban conversion therapy for LGBTQ youths
- Gretchen Whitmer: I want to find ‘common ground’ with Donald Trump
As of the 2020 US Census, there were 13,875 married same-sex couples in Michigan, including 8,357 female couples and 5,518 male couples. Another 12,306 same-sex couples lived together but were not married.
Among those married couples is state Rep. Jason Morgan, D-Ann Arbor, who wed his husband in 2023 and spoke out against the resolution Tuesday.
“This homophobic attack does not help Michigan families put food on the table or afford the high cost of housing or child care,” Morgan said. “... Frankly, this is crap.”
Who supports it?
Six fellow Republicans cosponsored Schriver’s resolution to condemn the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision and reaffirm the state Constitution’s definition of marriage as a "union between one man and one woman."
They include: Rep. Matt Maddock of Milford, Rep. Steve Carra of Three Rivers, Rep. Joseph Fox of Fremont, Rep. Gregory Alexander of Carsonville, Rep. Jason Woolford of Howell and Rep. James DaSana of Carleton.
Schriver had said 12 Republicans would cosponsor the resolution and did not explain why only half as many names were listed upon introduction. The Michigan House has 110 members, including 58 Republicans.
Asked about the resolution Tuesday, House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, said people “know what to expect from Rep. Schriver,” whom he defined as having “very deeply held beliefs.”
But he called the resolution "very divisive” within the GOP caucus and said "a lot of Republicans disagree with Rep. Shriver,” noting he intends to focus on “issues that unify our caucus and bring people together.”
Democrats condemn resolution
Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, in a video statement, had a simple response to Schriver’s resolution: “Hell no.”
“We fought a long, hard fight to win marriage equality, and we will always protect our family, our friends and neighbors from hateful attacks,” she said.
Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is openly gay and married, also blasted the resolution. And roughly half of the House Democratic Caucus — 27 members in all — gathered to condemn it on Tuesday.
“It’s time for Republicans to stop the divisive political games and start addressing real issues that matter to Michiganders,” said state Rep. Mike McFall, who married his husband in 2016 and is one of seven current state lawmakers who identify as part of the LGBTQ community.
Rep. Denise Mentzer, D-Mount Clemens, called Schriver “creepy and weird” for caring about “what’s going on in Rep. Morgan … or Rep. McFall’s bedrooms.”
“They’re my friends, but my interest stops at the backyard barbeque or in the living room,” she said. “What goes on in their bedroom is their damn business.”
What’s already on the books
Michigan voters in 2004 approved an amendment to the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil partnerships. The ballot measure passed with nearly 60% of the vote. Before that, a 1996 law banned both the licensing and recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Those laws could become active again if the US Supreme Court overturned its 2015 decision on same-sex marriages.
Democrats have considered spearheading a ballot proposal to try and strike down the 2004 amendment -– much like abortion rights advocates did in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade – but have not yet done so.
Morgan said Tuesday he would “very much like to see the homophobic ban on same-sex marriage removed from the state Constitution.”
State Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, urged action in a Facebook post, writing: “The only way to strike the marriage ban language from our Constitution is to repeal it by a majority vote from the public.”
Moss, who is gay, sat front row at Schriver’s press conference Tuesday, even taking the lectern to answer press questions after the Oxford Republican left without doing so.
Rep. Josh Schriver, R-Oxford, said he will not take questions about his resolution asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell which legalized same sex marriage nationwide in 2015.
— Jordyn Hermani (🔈: "HermanE”) (@JordynHermani) February 25, 2025
Front row at the presser is Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, who is openly gay. pic.twitter.com/6ttd2WTtsu
Why the resolution won’t go anywhere
By their nature, legislative resolutions are not legally binding. They are meant to symbolize support for an issue, to memorialize someone or to establish rules or committees within the state House and Senate.
While Schriver is encouraging the US Supreme Court to overturn its same-sex marriage decision, the resolution does not actually state that, and justices would in no way obligated to respond even if it passed.
But the resolution appears to be part of a larger national statement by Republicans opposed to same-sex marriages.
The Idaho state House in January approved a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2015 decision, and the North Dakota House did so this week. Resolutions have also been introduced in several other states, including Montana, South Dakota and Iowa.
In the Michigan House, lawmakers have already introduced 25 resolutions this year on topics ranging from declaring February 2025 “American Heart Month” to condemning the “sweeping presidential pardons” for those who took part in the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol.
The Republican-led House has not taken up the Jan. 6 resolution introduced by Democrats but has adopted most others, many via voice vote.
In Schriver’s case, his resolution was referred to the House Government Operations Committee, which is traditionally where resolutions go when leadership does not intend to put them up for a vote.
Is there precedent?
US Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both Republicans, signaled their openness to review the Obergefell decision after the fall of Roe in 2022.
The pair has repeatedly cast doubt on the legality of same-sex marriage over the years, most recently in 2024 regarding an LGBTQ-related lawsuit out of Missouri.
Justices declined to take up the case, prompting Alito to note that while he agreed with not taking up the case for legal reasons, “I am concerned … that Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be ‘labeled as bigots and treated as such’ by the government.”
See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:
- “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
- “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
- “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.
If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time!