LANSING, Mich. — The Democratic-led Michigan House voted Wednesday to include gay and transgender residents among the protected groups of people under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act.
The legislation, which passed the House 64-45, will move next to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has vowed to sign the bill into law after decades of debate over the policy. Eight Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill, which would protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.
The vote cements in law a ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court last summer that found the current law's protections based on sex included protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court's decision left in place a lower court ruling that found gender identity also was protected under the current law.
The 47-year-old civil rights law currently bars discrimination based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status or marital status.
State Rep. Laurie Pohutsky, D-Livonia, argued religious institutions since the Supreme Court decision have not been forced to act differently than they did before the ruling.
"No one is asking for a fundamental shift in religious tolerance," said Pohutsky, who is openly bisexual. "All we are asking is for the ability to live and work in our state with the same humanity and protections as every other Michigander.”
Rep. Jason Hoskins, a Southfield Democrat who introduced the bill in the House, thanked the "tireless efforts" of those who've been fighting for changes to the law.
"When someone hates you because of your identity and nothing else, there is nothing that is more dehumanizing," Hoskins said.
Rep. Jason Hoskins, D-Southfield, speaks to reporters on Wednesday about the passage of legislation that would add protections for sexual orientation and gender identity to Michigan's anti-discrimination law. Hoskins is the Legislature's first openly gay Black man.
Republicans offered more than a dozen amendments to the law — including additional religious protections, sports exemptions and vaccination status protections — that were ultimately rejected. One of the amendments offered by state Rep. Bill G. Schuette, R-Midland, would exempt "a religious corporation, association, society, or other organization, including a faith-based nonprofit" from the law when acting on "sincerely held religious beliefs."
Schuette called the rejected amendment a "reasonable" and "good faith" effort to provide clarity for religious organizations across the state.
"It protects religious based organizations acting on their sincerely held religious beliefs from being drawn into costly litigation," Schuette said.
Rep. Luke Meerman, R-Coopersville, in explaining his no vote, also argued more religious protections or exemptions are needed in the law.
"My vote today is not from a place of hate or ill will,” Meerman said.
Republicans had previously blocked efforts to add additional protections for gay and transgender individuals to the law, arguing it would infringe on religious rights. Democrats have countered that the law already includes protections based on religion.
Litigation currently is pending challenging the Michigan Supreme Court's July 2022 decision, arguing that if the law protects gay and transgender individuals from discrimination without also including religious exemptions it amounts to an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of religion.
In the bill, gender identity or expression is defined as "having a gender-related self-identity or expression whether or not associated with an individual's assigned sex at birth." Sexual orientation is described as "having an orientation for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality or having a history of such an orientation or being identified with such an orientation."
The fight over protections for gay and transgender individuals dates back decades, but reached a peak about five years ago when a state agency argued the protections already were in the law.
In 2018, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights announced its interpretation that Michigan law already protected against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation under the ban on discrimination based on "sex."
In December 2020, Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray ruled that federal court precedent established "gender identity" as falling under the definition of "sex." But Murray said a 1993 Michigan Court of Appeals opinion prevented him from including sexual orientation in that decision.
The case was appealed to the high court, which overturned the 1993 Court of Appeals opinion in finding sexual orientation was protected under the definition of "sex."
Proponents have argued the explicit listing of sexual orientation and gender identity in the law was needed in case a future court should reverse the high court's decision. When Democrats won majorities in both chambers in November, they named such a statute change as a priority.
In January 2020, a petition initiative led by a group of business executives, political activists and nonprofit leaders sought to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Michigan, but it failed to collect the requisite number of signatures, in part because of pandemic complications.
-------
(Detroit News staff writer Craig Mauger contributed to this story.)
