Partners Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer fight MI's same-sex marriage and adoption laws for their family

Jacob, 3, Jayne Rowse, Nolan, 4, April DeBoer, Ryanne, 3, at their home in Hazel Park, Mich. on March 8, 2013. The family is involved in a federal court lawsuit challenging Michigan's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Michigan's current adoption law prevents same-sex couples from both adopting the children. Currently, Jayne is the legal guardian of Nolan and Jacob, while April is the legal guardian of Ryanne. The lawsuit challenges Michigan's ban on same-sex marriages as violating children's and parents' rights under the U.S. Constitution.

(File photo)

LANSING -- Attorneys representing Gov. Rick Snyder and the state of Michigan in a case alleging the state's ban on same-sex joint adoptions violates the U.S. Constitution have argued the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage is necessary to "regulate sexual relationships" to encourage population growth.

The statement was made as part of a brief opposing a motion by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse asking a federal judge to grant a judgment in their favor.

DeBoer and Rowse, a Hazel Park couple who challenged the state's same-sex marriage ban as part of their challenge to state adoption laws, contend that the ban violates the federal guarantee of due process in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In the brief, attorneys from Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette's office say that Michigan and other states which define marriage as being "one man, one woman" have done so "to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society."

The brief also says that prior to a 2004 Massachusetts court decision enforcing a right to same-sex marriage in that state, "it was commonly understood that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society’s vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing."

The state also argues in the brief that the couple should be seeking to overturn the ban through a ballot initiative rather than through the courts. "If Michigan’s definition of marriage is to be changed, and if joint unmarried adoptions are to be authorized, both should be done by the people of the State of Michigan," the brief states.

A hearing is set for October 16 in U.S. District Court in Detroit to rule on the couple's motion as well as a motion filed by the state seeking judgment in its favor.

Brian Smith is the statewide education and courts reporter for MLive. Email him at bsmith11@mlive.com or follow him on Twitter or Facebook.