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 in DeBoer v. Snyder. 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 State Constitution in 2004. A statute enacted in 1996 also banned both the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of same-sex unions from other jurisdictions. In 2023, various politicians expressed their intention to introduce legislation repealing the now-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 Restrictions Statutes In June 1995, the Michigan Legislature voted to ban same-sex marriage, with the House of Representatives voting 88–14 in favour and the Senate voting 31–2. That same month, the House approved by a 74–28 vote a bill banning the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. The Senate also approved this bill.House OK's ban on gay marriagesState Senate OK's gay marriage, sends bill to Engler 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.
Constitutional amendment In 2004, voters approved a constitutional amendment, 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. Such a measure would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Michigan Legislature and approval by voters in a referendum. 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." A similar measure sponsored by 44 Democratic lawmakers was introduced to the House of Representatives in 2025, with a companion bill also introduced to the Senate. Advocates have also raised the possibility of collecting signatures for a ballot initiative repealing the ban.
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. Friedman wrote:
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 22, 2014 during the legal time window before the Sixth Circuit 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". In February 2025, Schriver, supported by six other Republican lawmakers, introduced a resolution to the House of Representatives urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. In response, Representative Jennifer Conlin introduced a counter-resolution, sponsored by 29 other Democratic lawmakers, expressing support for Obergefell. Both measures failed to pass the House of Representatives.
Native American nations The Indian Civil Rights Act, also known as Public Law 90–284 (; ), primarily aims to protect the rights of Native Americans but also reinforces the principle of tribal self-governance. While it does not grant sovereignty, the Act affirms the authority of tribes to govern their own legal affairs. Consequently, many tribes have enacted their own marriage and family laws. As a result, the Supreme Court's Obergefell ruling did not automatically apply to tribal jurisdictions.