A mixed crowd of activists for and against gay marriage stand and march outside the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse in Detroit after the conclusion of a nine-day trial in a challenge of Michigan's same-sex marriage ban Friday, March 7, 2014.

DETROIT, MI -- U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman's office was mum Monday on when a ruling might come down in the case of a Hazel Park couple who challenged Michigan's gay marriage ban.

A trial in the case concluded March 7 and Friedman said then he anticipated issuing a ruling "the week after next, hopefully."

(Related: Rainbow flags and religious hymns: End of trial leaves anxious anticipation of Michigan gay marriage ruling)

Couples around the state are awaiting a ruling on whether or not they may be allowed legally marry in Michigan for the first time.

But the state has requested a stay pending appeal in the event Friedman overturns the ban, meaning couples could still have a long wait ahead even if a ruling comes down in their favor.

Neither clerks in the judge's office nor representatives of either side in the case could provide guidance Monday on when Friedman may issue his ruling.

In the last series of court documents filed in the case last week, the state asked Friedman to find that the law banning same-sex marriage does not violate the Constitution, that adopting children is not a fundamental right, but a statutory privilege, and that voters had rational basis for enacting the law in 2004.

"Plaintiffs failed to prove that there is no rational basis for (1) providing children with 'biologically connected' role models of both genders that are necessary to foster healthy psychological development; (2) forestalling the unintended consequences that would result from the redefinition of marriage; (3) tradition and morality of retaining the definition of marriage and (4) promoting the transition of 'naturally procreative relationships into stable unions,'" state attorneys wrote in a set of proposed conclusions they want the judge reach.

The plaintiffs' attorneys asked the judge to find that gays, lesbians and bisexuals have suffered a history of discrimination in Michigan, that marriage is a civil contract with "political, economic, legal and personal components," that the ban does not rationally advance any state interest, that the state's marriage and adoption laws hurt same-sex couples and children and that the ban violates the Constitution.

"There is no rational basis for the assertion that children need 'biologically connected' role models of both genders," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in their proposed conclusions.

"The assertion is a negative assumption about same-sex couples without

basis in reality... Even if, counter-factually, there were a difference in outcomes, the State does not exclude from marriage those who belong to groups that have been documented to be less likely to raise well-adjusted children; for this reason, too, there is no rational basis for the MMA (Michigan Marriage Act)."

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, two nurses from Hazel Park who have been together for over a decade, raised the lawsuit because they can't jointly adopt their children.

Rowse has two adopted children, Jacob and Nolan. DeBoer adopted one, Ryanne.

Without a legal marriage in Michigan, if one parent were to die, they fear, the other may not get custody of all three children.

Friedman last year told them their case would have a better chance if it challenged the state's gay marriage ban, rather than just adoption laws, so they expanded the lawsuit to do so, bringing them under the national spotlight.

A nine-day trial was held with activists on both sides of the issue protesting outside the courthouse.

Friedman's ruling will decide whether Michigan becomes the 18th state to allow gay marriage.

Follow MLive Detroit reporter Khalil AlHajal on Twitter @DetroitKhalil or on Facebook at Detroit Khalil. He can be reached at kalhajal@mlive.com or 313-643-0527.