Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people in the U.S. state of Michigan enjoy the same rights as non-LGBTQ people. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Michigan under the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, although the state legislature has not repealed its sodomy law. Same-sex marriage was legalized in accordance with 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity is unlawful since July 2022 by a Michigan supreme court ruling and codified later by the legislature in 2023. Conversion therapy as well as the gay/trans panic defense were both banned in 2023 and 2024 respectively by the Michigan legislature.

Michigan in June 2024 was ranked "the most welcoming U.S. state for LGBT individuals". Michigan is home to a vibrant LGBT community. East Lansing and Ann Arbor were the first cities in the United States to pass LGBT discrimination protections, doing so in 1972. Pride parades have been held in the state's most populous city, Detroit, since 1986, and today attract thousands of people. While a majority of Michiganders support same-sex marriage, the formerly Republican-controlled Legislature had mostly ignored LGBT-related legislation, and as such progress had been slow (and had thus mostly come from the courts and local municipalities).

Legality of same-sex sexual activity

Sexual acts between persons of the same sex are legal in Michigan. They had been criminalized until the state's sodomy laws, which applied to both homosexuals and heterosexuals, were invalidated in 2003 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. However, Michigan has not yet legislatively repealed its sodomy law. Massachusetts and Michigan are the only northern U.S. states where same-sex sexual activity has not been codified into statutory law.

Recognition of same-sex relationships

Same-sex marriage

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.

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. The bill failed to pass before the end of the legislative session.

Lawsuits

On January 23, 2012, a lesbian couple filed a lawsuit, DeBoer v. Snyder in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, challenging the state's ban on adoption by same-sex couples in order to jointly adopt their children. On March 21, 2014, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Attorney General Bill Schuette filed for an emergency stay of his ruling with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Saturday, March 22, 2014, four of Michigan's 83 county clerks opened their offices for special hours and issued more than 300 marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Later that day, the Sixth Circuit stayed Judge Friedman's order until March 26. On March 25, 2014, the Sixth Circuit stayed the ruling indefinitely. On March 28, 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the Federal Government will recognize the same-sex marriages performed 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. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have a nationwide right to marry, legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, and Michigan.

Domestic partnerships

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional amendment forbidding recognition of same-sex relationships meant that public employers in Michigan could not legally grant domestic partnership benefits to their employees. A law in effect since December 2011 banned most public employers, though not colleges and universities, from offering health benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. It did not extend to workers whose benefits are established by the Michigan Civil Service Commission. 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 benefits to their employees' domestic partners. He made that injunction permanent on November 12, 2014, when he ruled in Bassett v. Snyder that Michigan's restrictions on domestic partnership benefits were not related to a legitimate government purpose. He distinguished his ruling from the Sixth Circuit's ruling in DeBoer: "It is one thing to say [as in DeBoer] that states may cleave to the traditional definition of marriage as a means of encouraging biologically complementary couples to stay together and raise the offspring they produce.... It is quite another to say that a state may adopt a narrow definition of family, and pass laws that penalize those unions and households that do not conform."

Family Making

Parental Rights In September 2019, a U.S. District Court Judge in Michigan granted a preliminary injunction allowing a state-contracted, faith-based adoption agency to refuse to certify same–sex couples or single LGBTQ+ individuals for adoption or foster care while its lawsuit against the state proceeds. The agency, St. Vincent Catholic Charities, argued that requiring it to serve LGBTQ+ prospective parents would violate its “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

In July 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court made an official ruling that fully guarantees legal parental rights, responsibilities and obligations for same-sex couples who have children or a child - even before same-sex marriage went into effect known a retrospective policy.

Adoption Michigan has no statutory ban on same-sex couples adopting, and no Michigan state court has ever interpreted Michigan's statute as prohibiting such adoptions. However, at least one other state court has ruled that unmarried individuals may not jointly petition to adopt.

Two Michigan lesbians, who are raising three children adopted by only one of them, filed a lawsuit known as DeBoer v. Snyder in federal court in January 2012 seeking to have the state's ban on adoption by same-sex couples overturned. and in September amended that suit to challenge the state's ban on same-sex marriage as well.

In December 2012, the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate-level court, ruled in Usitalo v. Landon that the state's courts have jurisdiction to grant second-parent adoptions by same-sex couples.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling striking down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, Michigan courts have been granting adoption rights to same-sex couples.

Surrogacy The United States Supreme Court sets no precedents on surrogate-parenting agreements; hence, it is left for state courts to rule on the matter. In 1981, the Michigan Appeals Court ruled in Doe v. Kelley that state law upholds individuals' privacy to engage in noncommercial surrogacy agreements (cite).  However, a 1988 case in New Jersey shifted national public opinions on surrogate parenting and was reflected in state legislation.

The Michigan Surrogate Parenting Act (SPA), passed in 1988, ruled that individuals could not enter a gestational surrogacy contract involving compensation. It defined compensation as payment beyond medical expenses incurred during pregnancy. The SPA also ruled that commercial surrogacy contracts were void and unenforceable, and criminalized participation in compensated surrogacy with a contract. It did not provide legal protection for intended parents or the surrogate.

In 1992, the case Doe v. Attorney General upheld the Surrogate Parenting Act. Within this case, the Michigan Court of Appeals laid out interests that the SPA was attempting to protect. It has not yet been determined whether or not the interests in this case are favored by the SPA. Some argue that the revision and assessment of these interests are necessary due to the headway made with reproductive technology.

The appellate court decided to uphold the SPA for three reasons. To begin, surrogacy, as something that can be paid for, brought concern for the commodification of children, arguing that they were being treated as merchandise. Secondly, it was argued that by upholding the SPA, the best interest of the child was prioritized as well. Mainly, the court stated that because the interests of the parents were most present during surrogacy, there was an incapacity to properly take into account the potential emotional trauma faced by the child. Thirdly, it was contended that the exploitation of women, and the idea of them being reduced to their reproductive power, was a major apprehension of the argument to replace the SPA.

In March 2024, a bill passed both houses of the Michigan Legislature decriminalising commercial (paid, not altruistic) surrogacy contracts. The Governor of Michigan signed the bill into law.

Surrogacy law is relevant for LGBTQ+ couples looking to have children, especially for gay men, as the percentage of LGBTQ+ couples seeking surrogacy services is rising each year.

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) IVF and other forms of assisted reproductive technology are widely considered to be LGBTQ+ rights issues, as many of these individuals and same-sex couples rely on these medical procedures, such as donor insemination, IVF, and surrogacy, to have children. After the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022, researchers at the Rutgers School of Public Health noted that many Americans lost access to non-abortion reproductive services, including IVF, highlighting how shifts in reproductive-care law can jeopardize family formation opportunities for the LGBTQ+ population.

As of April 1 of 2024, Gov. Whitmer signed the Michigan Family Protection Act, which included nine bills. The acts include topics such as surrogacy, IVF, and equality for LGBTQ+ parents. Specifically, the bill ensures that “children born by surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology (including IVF) are treated equally under the law” which was not ensured before the bill.

Discrimination protections On December 23, 2003, Governor Jennifer Granholm issued an executive order prohibiting employment discrimination state-level public sector employment on the basis of sexual orientation. The order only covers employees of the state of Michigan and does not cover public sector employees of county, school, or local-level governments. On November 22, 2007, Governor Jennifer Granholm extended her executive order to include gender identity. This executive order was kept under Governor Rick Snyder.

On March 14, 2013, the Michigan Senate passed, by a 37–0 vote, an emergency harbor dredging funding bill that made private marinas ineligible for a new loan program if they discriminate based on sexual orientation. On March 20, 2013, the Michigan House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 106–4. On March 27, 2013, Governor Rick Snyder signed an emergency harbor dredging funding bill that made private marinas ineligible for a new loan program if they discriminate based on sexual orientation.

In January 2019, Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity in all areas of state government employment, including by employers receiving contracts and in grants from the state.