Michigan’s courts could be required to use lawyers’ and parties’ “personal pronouns” after a hearing on a state supreme court proposal Wednesday.
The Michigan Supreme Court proposed a change to its rules that will force documents and court proceedings, including how a judge addresses a person, to use pronouns a person requests rather than those related to biological gender.
NASA TARGETING MONDAY LAUNCH FOR ISS RESUPPLY MISSION
A rule change would follow guidance from the American Bar Association pushing the use of “LGBTQ inclusive language in court proceedings nationwide.”
“Parties and attorneys may also include any personal pronouns in the name section of the caption, and courts are required to use those personal pronouns when referring to or identifying the party or attorney, either verbally or in writing,” the proposed rule states. “Nothing in this subrule prohibits the court from using the individual’s name or other respectful means of addressing the individual if doing so will help ensure a clear record.”
Court proceedings and records would become confusing, some opponents argue, and judges could open themselves up to lawsuits.
Interested parties are at odds on the rule change, as 12 appeals court judges, 23 trial court judges, and many others sent letters detailing their dismay with the change.
The groups of judges cite the “limitless possibilities,” with the trial judges noting that “a 5 second Google search revealed this list of 762 pronouns,” which took up about 31 pages of the 39-page letter.
“Perhaps we are wrong, but we seriously doubt that those who refer to themselves as Puppy, honk, Mew, Ci, n3, and splash harbor a deeply seated belief that is their authentic gender,” the trial judges continue.
Citing instances of “abuse” where some have required the use of “your majesty,” “her lordship,” and “Apache attack helicopter,” the judges said, “Although ‘your Majesty’ might on its face seem absurd, the rule does not allow the Judge to point out the absurdity. Judges are not allowed to challenge whether a person holds a genuine desire to be referred to by any particular pronoun.”
Beyond the “absurdity” of the pronouns, judges also argue the mandate would have the effect of “compelled speech” for judges, as well as violate the religious liberty of jurors who “consider using pronouns divorced from biological sex at birth as a violation of their religious convictions.”
The Catholic Lawyers Society of Metropolitan Detroit provided a comment, saying, “The Court should decline to insert itself into one of the most controversial social issues of our time.”
Some legal scholars point out that even the religious liberty arguments are not strong, considering the ethical norms to which judges are already required to adhere.
“You don’t have to believe that someone is a male when you call them mister, but courtesy dictates that you do so, even if you don’t believe in your heart of hearts that’s true,” Indiana University Law School professor Charles Geyh told Bloomberg Law. “Litigants have to call him ‘your honor’ even if they don’t think he’s honorable.”
Despite the cautiousness on one side, there are other judges in Michigan who welcome the change but still point out that the mandatory nature of the rule is concerning. The Michigan Judges Association said it would support the rule if it included changes that gave the court more discretion on pronouns.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The State Bar of Michigan LGBTQA Section wrote in support of the rule change and said any confusion for the court could be easily mitigated. “In those very narrow circumstances where the court believes that use of the designated pronoun would lead to an unclear record, the court may use the person’s name or another respectful means of address,” its letter stated.
The Michigan Supreme Court will hold a public administrative hearing on the pronoun proposal at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.
