A Detroit federal judge's decision to strike down Michigan's 2004 ban on same-sex marriage was widely anticipated when it came last March out of a Hazel Park couple's lawsuit. But the dispute has taken on a few twists in the courts since then, and could shape a new national policy on such marriages.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman found the voter-approved Michigan Marriage Amendment to the state constitution violates the Equal Protection Clause of the federal one. Theagreed last month to hear that case and three others from the

At issue was whether April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two nurses from Hazel Park, can adopt children as a couple. Michigan law allows only married couples or single people to adopt. Rowse has individually adopted two of the three children in their home, and DeBoer the third.

But the Friedman ruling March 21 prompted about 300 same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses before Michigan Attorney Bill Schuette appealed and obtained a stay on the decision the next day from the 6th Circuit.

The appeals court upheld the state ban in November along with similar laws in Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky — even though four other appellate circuits had struck down such state bans and same-sex marriage supporters saw more than 30 other federal court victories nationwide since the Supreme Court last ruled on the issue in June 2013.

That created an unusual status for couples who wed before the stay took effect — and some confusion for both individuals and employers.

The Obama administration has said it recognizes such marriages for federal benefit purposes, but originally the state did not. That was interpreted to mean couples could file jointly in federal tax returns but not state ones; or an employee could take a leave of absence under the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a spouse, but gay couples still could not adopt children together in Michigan.

Eight of those couples filed a lawsuit in April before U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith in Detroit, who ruled Jan. 15 the state must recognize those marriages as well.

On Feb. 4, Gov. Rick Snyder decided that the state would not appeal.

"Our nation's highest court will decide this issue," Snyder said in a statement. "I know there are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and it's vitally important for an expedient resolution that will allow people in Michigan, as well as other states, to move forward together on the other challenges we face."

The high court in June 2013 struck down a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act restricting marriage to a union between a man and a woman, but also deferred to states to decide about such marriages on their own.

Since then, the number of states authorizing gay marriage has grown from 12 to 36, and four appellate circuit courts have sided against bans in various states.

After the 6th Circuit ruling, however, the Supreme Court asked attorneys from Michigan and three other states to argue on whether the federal constitution requires states to license same-sex marriages, and to recognize them when legally performed elsewhere.

Carole Stanyar, attorney for DeBoer and Rowse in the 2012 case, said oral arguments are expected in late April, and Michigan and Kentucky attorneys will argue the marriage licensing issue. Attorneys from Ohio and elsewhere will argue the recognition question.

"The court may limit the arguments to one person on each side of the issue, or President Obama may also be afforded time (to present the federal government's position) through his solicitor general," Stanyar said via email.

The April lawsuit, by the Michigan couples who wed after Friedman's ruling, also alleges some couples were unable to receive health insurance benefits from their employers for their spouses on the grounds that Michigan law does not recognize their marriages. Attorneys said it was not immediately clear if Goldsmith's January ruling addresses employers or only compels the state government to recognize the marriages.

A Supreme Court decision is expected in June.

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse v. Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette et al, Docket No. 14-571, U.S. Supreme Court. Carole Stanyar, attorney, for the plaintiffs. Joseph Potchen, Michigan attorney general corporate oversight division, for the defense. Marsha Caspar and Glenna DeJong et al v. Snyder, former Department of Human Services Director Maura Corrigan et al, Docket No. 14-cv-11499, U.S. District Court, Detroit. Jay Kaplan and Michael Steinberg, ACLU of Michigan, for the plaintiffs. Michael Murphy, Michigan Department of Attorney General, for the defense.