Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

BREAKING: Michigan marriage equality ban ruled unconstitutional

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Michigan state seal

UPDATE 1 5:40PM ET State officials have filed their notice of appeal in the case. This is the notice that they will be appealing the judge’s order to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. It should be noted that with this appeal, every state that is within the Sixth Circuit has a marriage case pending at the appeals court.

UPDATE 2 5:51PM ET: The state attorney general has issued a statement and has said the notice of appeal has been filed, and that a request for an emergency stay was also filed. EqualityOnTrial is working on getting the stay request.

UPDATE 3 6:30PM ET: Chris Johnson from the Washington Blade tweeted that clerks are opening their offices and people may be able to get married. There’s still no word on the emergency stay request, which appears to have been filed at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

UPDATE 4 7:07PM ET: Here is the 21-page emergency request for a stay in the Sixth Circuit.

UPDATE 5 8:12PM ET: The latest report says that if any clerks want to open for the weekend, they may do so, but it doesn’t say that any clerks so far have chosen to do that.

UPDATE 6 9:54PM ET: Washtenaw’s County Clerk will open office from 9AM – 1PM tomorrow.

A federal district court judge has just ruled that Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional in DeBoer v. Snyder. The case was originally brought as a challenge to the state’s adoption ban, but was expanded to challenge the amendment barring same-sex couples from marrying or having their marriages recognized in the state. The ban was struck down using the most lenient form of review, rational basis, a standard considered more deferential toward the government. The ban “does not advance any conceivable legitimate state interest,” and therefore fails under any standard of review.

The judge is enjoining enforcement of the ban:

After reviewing the evidence presented at the trial, including the testimony of variousexpert witnesses, the exhibits, and stipulations, and after considering all of the legal issuesinvolved, the Court concludes that the MMA is unconstitutional and will enjoin its enforcement.

The judge writes that the statutes implementing the same-sex marriage ban are also unconstitutional:

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The judge, a Reagan appointee, found Mark Regnerus’ (author of a widely-discredited study on the supposed effects on children of same-sex parents) “entirely unbelievable”:

The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it “essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society” and which “was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.” See Pls.’ Motion in limine to Exclude Testimony of Mark Regnerus, Ex. 9. In the funder’s view, “the future of the institution of marriage at this moment is very uncertain” and “proper research” was needed to counter the many studies showing no differences in child outcomes. Id. The funder also stated that “this is a project where time is of the essence.” Id.

He agreed Regnerus’ study is flawed:

Additionally, the NFSS is flawed on its face, as it purported to study “a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18-39) who were raised indifferent types of family arrangements” (emphasis added), but in fact it did not study this at all, as Regnerus equated being raised by a same-sex couple with having ever lived with a parent who had a “romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” for any length of time. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this “study,” he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in general and reaffirmed the aforementioned APA position statement.

The formal judgment is here:

The Court in this matter has issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

In accordance therewith,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment be and is hereby granted for plaintiffs and against defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing the Michigan Marriage Amendment and its implementing statutes, as they conflict with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This story will be updated as the opinion is read.

Updates moved to top of the post

MUCH thanks to Kathleen Perrin and Equality Case Files for these filings

For more information on DeBoer v. Snyder from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.

171 Comments

  • 1. peterplumber  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    Nice. Will there be an appeal?

  • 2. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    I would assume so, but there's no official word yet.

  • 3. peterplumber  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    What about a stay?

  • 4. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    As far as I can tell none was issued with this opinion. But I'm only just now reading it. Have been trying to get the story up and all. But they can ask the judge for a stay or the Sixth Circuit for one, so we'll see.

  • 5. Larry  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Some nice writing in the decision (and from a Reagan appointee no less)

    Page 13: "The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration"

    Page 23: "Taking the state defendants’ position to its logical conclusion, the empirical
    evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians may marry, to the exclusion of all other heterosexual couples."

  • 6. Chris M.  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Regnerus gets annihilated in the opinion… I guess he had it coming.

  • 7. Ragavendran  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    There's now an emergency request for a stay. This looks like it could be Utah all over again. http://www.freep.com/article/20140321/NEWS06/3032

    "Friedman did not follow the trend sent by other federal judges handling similar cases across the country, Judge Friedman did not stay his ruling pending the outcome of appeal."

  • 8. Steve  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm

    Regnerus is badly pwned:

    "The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious
    consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 “study” was hastily
    concocted at the behest of a third-party funder”

    "While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a
    researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain
    result, and Regnerus obliged. Additionally, the NFSS is flawed on its face, as it purported to
    study “a large, random sample of American young adults [...], but in fact it did not study this at all, as Regnerus equated being raised by a same-sex couple with having ever lived with a parent who had a “romantic relationship with someone of the same sex” for any length of time. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this “study,” he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples."

    Note the scare quotes around "study" :)

  • 9. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    Doh! You beat me to it! Those words about Regnerus just leap right off the page, don't they? : )

  • 10. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Notice of appeal was just filed and added!

  • 11. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    I like this part: "It is no wonder that the NFSS has been widely
    and severely criticized by other scholars, and that Regnerus’s own sociology department at the
    University of Texas has distanced itself from the NFSS in particular and Dr. Regnerus’s views in
    general and reaffirmed the aforementioned APA position statement."

  • 12. Dr. Z  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    All the more reason why SCOTUS will have to take a marriage equality case next term. After they disregarded their own guidelines for granting a stay to issue one in the Kitchen lawsuit, every district and appelate court in the country is going to stay its decision until SCOTUS indicates that marriage equality is the law of the land. Well, the water's really piling up behind that dam, and SCOTUS is going to have to open the floodgates.

    And brothers and sisters – what a day of celebration that will be. One for the history books.

  • 13. Dr. Z  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    Snap!

  • 14. Bruno71  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:46 pm

    This is exactly what I was hoping for. A lot of people were trying to stop Regnerus from testifying, but I felt it would a) severely undermine the state's case b) severely undermine Regnerus and c) leave an opportunity for Regnerus to be badly pwned. I love it.

  • 15. Pat  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    Hahahaha, WOW! That's some pretty amazing language right there!

  • 16. karen in kalifornia  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    So without a stay, I guess since county clerk offices are closed for the wkend there will
    be no licenses and no marriages and we can expect the emergency stay to be granted
    first thing Monday am.

  • 17. Pat  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Yeah, it seems almost impossible that SCOTUS would NOT grant an emergency stay pending appeal. If they didn't issue a stay, that would be hard to justify the inconsistency with the Utah case

  • 18. Bruno71  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    I'm sure the district court judge or the 6th Circuit will grant the stay. Unfortunately, they know that's how SCOTUS wants it.

  • 19. Pat  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    unless some clerk offices make a point of opening this weekend. Couldn't that happen?
    I think some exceptional extended opening hours happened before in other states.

  • 20. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    I guess we won't really know if all of those offices will remain closed all weekend until tomorrow morning….. They could open, and they could begin allowing same sex couples to marry, any time before the stay is granted, right?

  • 21. Zack12  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    For all of those worried about this judge's motives, you can all breath easier now.
    My theory was the judge simply figured he would kill two birds with one stone.
    The logic used for the adoption ban was the same for the marriage ban as well. Just get it done in one fell swoop.

  • 22. Zack12  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Here's the best part, Regnerus is totally demolished in this ruling, which means all the people who cited him in their briefs as justifcations for bans are going to have a problem.

  • 23. Christian  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    I'm hoping the Judge chastises SCOTUS for the "gay means stay" policy under his breath, so to speak, like was done in Utah.

  • 24. Jay  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    What happened to the adoption part of the case?

  • 25. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    That guy had better not have any outstanding invoices with his funders for those "studies". His stock just dropped to nada.

  • 26. sfbob  |  March 21, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    See Zack's comment above: "The logic used for the adoption ban was the same for the marriage ban as well. Just get it done in one fell swoop."

  • 27. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    …. and on the flip-side to the Regnerus remarks, here's what the Judge says about Brodzinski, the expert witness who argued in favor of same sex marriage:

    "The Court finds Brodzinsky’s testimony to be fully credible and gives it considerable
    weight. He testified convincingly that children’s outcomes depend on the factors he cited, and
    not on their parents’ gender and not on whether they are raised by heterosexual or same-sex
    couples. The quality of a person’s child-rearing skills is unrelated to the person’s gender or
    sexual orientation. "

  • 28. mackenzie  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    I have seen reports that some office's remained open to grant licenses….is this valid?

  • 29. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    …..and upon further reading, it looks like the Judge concluded that ALL of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs were credible, and NONE of the expert witnesses for the state were credible…

  • 30. Pat  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    Love this part too:
    "Marks, Price and Allen all failed to concede the importance of “convenience sampling” as a social science research tool. They, along with Regnerus, *clearly represent a fringe viewpoint* that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields. The most that can be said of these witnesses’ testimony is that the “no differences” consensus has not been proven with scientific certainty, not that there is any credible evidence showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than those raised by heterosexual couples"

  • 31. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    Can you follow up? Where are you seeing this? I hope it's true. That would be awesome.

  • 32. Chris M.  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    I heard the Washtenaw county clerk say a while ago that he is committed to marriage equality and that he would waive the usual three-day waiting period when the time comes. I imagine that he would also be willing to open his doors outside of regular business hours to make it happen.

  • 33. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    Judge Friedman's decision is an eloquent plea for justice. I had doubted him and his insistence on a thorough trial, but he did just the right thing. The trial revealed the utter emptiness of arguments against same-sex marriage. As it turned out, their "family values" were exposed as deeply harmful to the children of same-sex couples. I am so grateful to Judge Friedman for recognizing the fraudulence of Regnerus et al. And I am very grateful to the attorneys for the Deboers who called real experts. Despite the machinations of the attorney general, we will prevail.

  • 34. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    Does anyone know if there is a waiting period in Michigan before marriage licenses can be used?

  • 35. Chris M.  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    Yes, three days. But county clerks can waive it, and the Washtenaw county clerk has already said that he would do so, because we have waited long enough.

  • 36. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    It was my understanding that the judge thought the marriage ruling would take care of the whole issue. I believe there's a ban on unmarried couples adopting, and now that the couples can marry, they could adopt. That's if I'm recalling this correctly, and my head's all scrambled with all this news right now.

  • 37. sfbob  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    Here's another sound debunking of the "good-of-the-children" arguments we've been reading here recently:

    "Taking the state defendants’ position to its logical conclusion, the empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians may marry, to the exclusion of all other heterosexual couples."

  • 38. Josh  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Yea this is awesome!! So much for their flimsy lies against us!

  • 39. Zack12  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    He did do the right thing, as the "experts" for the anti side were shown for what they were.
    Bigots who already had it in their heads that gays and lesbians are sinful and thus aren't deserving of marriage.
    And they went into these "studies" with that as their starting point.

  • 40. Zack12  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    He did do the right thing, as the "experts" for the anti side were shown for what they were.
    Bigots who already had it in their heads that gays and lesbians are sinful and thus aren't deserving of marriage.
    And they went into these "studies" with that as their starting point, something this trial clearly showed.

  • 41. JakePHX  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    Never mind "heightened scrutiny". I have seen this coming since Lawrence in 2003 and almost every US District Judge's decision on the marriage matter since; this guy Friedman seems to have finished the task of re-defining "rational basis".

    Pointing out the irrationality of all the anti-marriage equality statutes/amendments has achieved a new high, or new low, as it were.

    Thank you, Michigan. (Wisconsin, do you hear footsteps?)

  • 42. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:42 pm

    I just updated the post. Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade tweeted something similar. Nothing on specific counties, but just a general thing. It seems that some people may be about to get married. There is an emergency stay request apparently so.

  • 43. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    Whoa! Check out the "UPDATE 3" that has just been added to the article above!!

  • 44. Christian  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    I'm trying to track SB 1306 in CA and was wondering what site I should use for updates (eg upcoming commitee hearings, floor votes etc)?

    Unfortunately I appear to be the one person whose excited about the bill otherwise I'd simply rely on EoT for updates but I am unsure if they'll cover it's progress (seeing as it is mostly a book keeping measure).

  • 45. StraightDave  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm

    and let Regnerus hang himself in the process. That was just a bonus. His name and "study" are both now ashes.

  • 46. Ragavendran  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    Well, the Utah case was a summary judgment and in this case, there was a full blown trial. This could be enough justification, perhaps, to differentiate the stay requests.

  • 47. StraightDave  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    Pretty well surrounded now, aren't they? I smell a neighbor state marriage recognition case coming soon, stupid jail law or not. They'll have to cave on that one.

  • 48. jpmassar  |  March 21, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    What is SB 1306 ?

  • 49. Ragavendran  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    This part packs some punch (though it starts off as an amusing observation):

    "In delivering their opening and closing remarks, plaintiffs’ attorneys contended that the voters who approved the MMA were motivated by animus towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. Since the Court is unable discern the intentions of each individual voter who cast their ballot in favor of the measure, it is cannot ascribe such motivations to the approximately 2.7 million voters who approved the measure. Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law. The same Constitution that protects the free exercise of one’s faith in deciding whether to solemnize certain marriages rather than others, is the same Constitution that prevents the state from either mandating adherence to an established religion, U.S. Const. amend I, or “enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without an accompanying secular purpose.”"

  • 50. Christian  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    A bill by Sen. Mark Leno that would repeal California's 1977 ban on marriage equality as well as the CA Defense of Marriage Act (Prop 22). Itwould make all other language in the family and civil codes relating to families and marriage gender neutral as well.

  • 51. Ragavendran  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    And the conclusion, both majestic and humble:

    "In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” Tr. 2/25/14 p. 40, state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail."

  • 52. Steve  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    This part is also great:

    "In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” 40, state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to
    ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples"

  • 53. Michigan Judge Approves G&hellip  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:19 pm

    […] poster boy for opponents of marriage equality, and the relevance of his highly touted research. Equality on trial (a specialist blog on gay marriage law) quotes part of the […]

  • 54. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Lovely.

  • 55. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    That is such a beautiful tribute to the mothers and another rebuke of the bastards who tried to use the idea that same-sex parenting is dangerous as a means to prevent marriage equality.

  • 56. JimT  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    A Reagan appointee, wonderful! I betcha that has some "red" heads spinning :) I love it!

  • 57. David  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    Absolutely. There is now no question about the value of Regnerus' "study." Best thing that could have happened.

  • 58. sfbob  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:36 pm

    There were some procedural problems in the Utah case as well, due to the state attorney general's incompetence (there is no kinder way to describe it). Another commenter here mentioned that as the possible explanation as to why SCOTUS granted a stay in that case. Since Judge Friedman rather loudly suggested that a stay is neither appropriate or justifiable in this case, perhaps the Sixth Circuit will get the message. And who knows, if what was said earlier is correct, perhaps SCOTUS will choose not to intervene either. But I guess we'll see.

  • 59. sfbob  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    The request for an appeal consists mainly of repeating the arguments that were discarded not only in Judge Friedman's decision but in Windsor as well. About the only added component is the surmise that SCOTUS having granted a stay in Kitchen vs Herbert signaled that they were going to reverse that decision on appeal. That would seem to be a huge jumping-to-conclusion on their part.

  • 60. Bruno71  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    Another thing might be that since the Utah case, we've seen favorable district court decisions in Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, and now Michigan. It might be easier for SCOTUS to let things accelerate now that a consensus is so strongly forming among the district courts. But I think they're more likely to keep stays in place than not.

  • 61. KarlS  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    I'll bet a sawbuck against a cup of cold coffee he asked for and got up-front advances! :-)

  • 62. Rick O.  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Ahh, Regnerus. Does he have tenure? I would say the University of Texas has a problem. Kind of like having Dr. Mengele on the faculty.

  • 63. JayJonson  |  March 21, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Regnerus has tenure, but I doubt any grad students will want to work with him. And clearly his colleagues have no respect for him. I suspect he will soon leave for Baylor or Notre Dame or Brigham Young.

  • 64. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    I have not been able to locate any news about the exact situation right now in Michigan – are there any offices open right now and willing to allow same sex couples to marry, are there any same sex couples actually trying to marry right now, etc. ..

    Do we have any participants from Michigan on the site now, or anyone else who has some info?

  • 65. Craig Nelson  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Michigan took a huge risk hitching their wagon to Regnerus – what were they expecting to happen? He was always going to be demolished – unless of course they're secretly working for us (I've even harboured the thought that Scalia might have been working for us – for a moment or to anyway).

    Interesting to see what SCOTUS and the Circuit Court do on the issue of the stay. A lot has happened since Utah so all things are possible.

  • 66. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    At the time the Utah stay was issued, many of the decisions Friedman cited didn't yet exist. I think there have been more marriage-equality decisions in the 9 months since Windsor than in the 41 years (starting with, ugh, Baker) before it.

  • 67. Zack12  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    He was all they had, they really had no choice and I don't think they were expecting him to be that bad.

  • 68. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    I just updated my post again. It seems that no clerks will have to open their offices, but they can if they want.

  • 69. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    Thanks!

  • 70. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:36 pm

    Oh, he's still likely to be helpful to them in their efforts in Eastern Europe, Africa and parts of Asia. And make no mistake that our opponents are already directing most of their efforts overseas.

  • 71. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    Correct. It's explained on pages 2 and 3 of the decision.

  • 72. sfbob  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    I hope you won't mind if I mention that you were the "commenter" I was referring to above. I appreciated your observation; somehow never quite got around to responding directly.

  • 73. sfbob  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    Thing is that they don't have to justify anything when they issue a stay, nor when they refuse to do so. They can pretty much do what they want to, no matter how contradictory it might look.

  • 74. Steve  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    I didn't expect him to be slapped down this hard. It's not as hard as how George Rekers went down in court, but harder than I thought.

  • 75. Steve  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    We shouldn't be so naive to think that this was the least time he will rear is ugly, goateed head. Maybe he won't testify in person again (though that may well happen too), but the study will be cited for many years to come. Each time they can roll the dice and hope that a judge will see it differently.

  • 76. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    Strictly speaking, he didn't conclude that Price and Allen weren't credible, only that their testimony could be granted only minimal weight in this case (where, to be fair, the issues they were testifying about were mostly secondary).

  • 77. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    And Friedman may very well be well-informed enough to know that to an actual scientist, "scientific certainty" is an oxymoron (which, BTW, is why pseudoscience and superstition are so appealing: they purport to offer certainty because they lack the humility of science).

  • 78. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    IIRC, the part about being unable to discern the motivations of individual voters is an almost direct quote from Walker's decision in Perry (prop 8).

  • 79. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    Speaking of Scalia, this decision broke the pattern of citing his dissents in Lawrence and Windsor; I guess that's considered old hat now.

  • 80. FYoung  |  March 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm

    Yes, the only thing that would really stop Regnerus is if he were professionally disciplined for scientific misconduct, or lost his tenured professor's job, but, even then, we know that Paul Cameron is still being cited by the Reich Wing despite suffering this.

    I really wish that Regnerus were found guilty of scientific misconduct for deliberately misrepresenting the data.

  • 81. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  March 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    Basically, the judge had previously indicated that if marriage was allowed, the adoption part went away (since married couples can adopt jointly).

  • 82. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    Not at all.

    I see that Schuette has been reduced to citing Jackson v. Abercrombie as an authority in their request for a stay (in the same section where they say that rational basis is the appropriate level of scrutiny for deciding Equal Protection claims based on sexual orientation, as if that matters in appealing a case that actually did use rational basis).

  • 83. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    From this point on, we must all follow Judge Friedman in making sure we put quotes around "study" when talking about Regnerus.

  • 84. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    In some ways it was worse than Rekers. The courts in AR and FL ruled that Rekers was actually testifying as to his personal religious beliefs rather than scientific consensus. Here the court ruled that Regnerus's conclusions were bought and paid for.

  • 85. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 21, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    And one more time… updated to note that the Washtenaw County Clerk will open their office tomorrow for part of the day.

  • 86. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    YEAH! That is excellent!!!!

  • 87. davep  |  March 21, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    Check out the latest UPDATE # 6 in the article above –

    SAME SEX MARRIAGES SHOULD BEGIN SATURDAY MORNING IN MICHIGAN.

  • 88. RobW303  |  March 21, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    And will SCOTUS take kindly to how they were hoodwinked into giving this study credibility the first time? I think it will boomerang in our favor, since it has been made such a pillar for the defense in virtually all the lower court cases.

  • 89. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  March 21, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    This is a special day for me. I first got started in internet advocacy in an attempt to prevent this bill from being amended to the Michigan constitution, debating with the likes of Pam Gellar and Debbie Schlussel (sp?) on the Detroit newspaper forums. It's been a long haul, and I certainly could have done a lot more, but to see this day finally arrive is… indescribable.

    And yet my feelings pale in comparison to my LBGT* friends and compatriots who are most affected by this. After all, I've had the joy and privilege of being married for nearly 12 years. I can only wish that you all have the opportunity to experience the same.

    *And don't forget to support the T in that phrase, please.

  • 90. Chris M.  |  March 21, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    And there is a Saturday Morning Special in Washtenaw County to celebrate the occasion. The county clerk will reduce the fee from $50 to $0.01!

  • 91. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  March 21, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    Awesome! I live in Washtenaw County. Maybe I should swing by the courthouse on my way to running some errands.

  • 92. Zack12  |  March 21, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    Already Judge Friedman is being called a left leaning liberal judge on twitter.
    Not only he is a Reagan appointee but as I said before, he struck down part of affrirmative action in Michigan.
    He's no liberal in any sense of the word, not even close.
    The bigots just can't accept the fact a judge that isn't in the far right mode of Scalia and Thomas will actually rule according to the law and not religious beliefs.

  • 93. Bruno71  |  March 21, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    By a stretch, he could be called a centrist. So it should concern these frightwangers that the center is so positively in our court.

  • 94. Mike in Baltimore  |  March 21, 2014 at 8:07 pm

    I doubt Regnerus would leave for ND. Regnerus would probably like to go there, but I seriously doubt ND would have him.

    ND is a Catholic school, but it is quite well known for respecting correctly applied science, and not for the pseudo-science Regnerus is peddling (Jesuits [the founders of ND] are a lot more sane than many want to credit them for). ND also is not known for being a lap dog for the Vatican, but an institution that must be shown why the Vatican is correct. ND wants to keep it's reputation for being well respected as an open-minded university, not the lap dog and seat for the ideology of someone else.

    On the other hand, Baylor U and Brigham Young are probably panting like crazy to get him.

  • 95. Dr. Z  |  March 21, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    Yes, he has tenure, and I've no doubt the UT Sociology faculty regret that as the worst decision they ever made. But short of serious academic "hand-in-the-cookie-jar" misconduct, they're stuck with him unless he resigns to go to work for a well-paid conservative "think tank."

    Which is exactly what Regnerus will likely do. His academic career is finished.

  • 96. Rick O.  |  March 21, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    Even Baylor & BYU have at least pretensions of academic rigor, and hiring Regnerus would be at the very best awkward. Maybe Liberty or Oral Roberts "universities"? Or Bullwinkel's alma mater, Wazzamatta U.

  • 97. Zack12  |  March 21, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    Bleh.. I misspelled affirmative. I hate when that happens.

  • 98. Scottie Thomaston  |  March 21, 2014 at 9:33 pm

    I wrote a new post tracking developments for tomorrow: http://equalityontrial.com/2014/03/21/michigan-co

  • 99. Equality On TrialSome Mic&hellip  |  March 21, 2014 at 10:34 pm

    […] EqualityOnTrial noted in its report earlier, Washtenaw County’s clerk will open their office tomorrow (Saturday) from 9AM – 1PM to issue marriage licenses to […]

  • 100. ebohlman  |  March 21, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    I doubt Liberty or ORU would want a Catholic.

  • 101. skrekk  |  March 21, 2014 at 11:13 pm

    The federal lawsuit in Wisconsin will be heard starting March 27th: http://www.wisconsingazette.com/wisconsin-gaze/fe

  • 102. Pat  |  March 21, 2014 at 11:46 pm

    Yes, that's such a sweet revenge for when bigots write "marriage" with quitation marks!

  • 103. Michael  |  March 22, 2014 at 12:09 am

    I loved the hard slap to the face of that right-wing-financed idiot Ridiculous', I mean Regnarus' "study."

  • 104. Ragavendran  |  March 22, 2014 at 1:34 am

    Apparently, there is 6th Circuit precedent for DENYING stay pending appeal when a Michigan district court ruled a state law unconstitutional. Quoting from Judge Trauger's recent order denying stay in Tanco v. Haslam (the Tennessee case):

    "where a district court had found a Michigan law unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, the Sixth Circuit denied a motion by the defendants for a stay pending appeal. See U.S. Student Assoc. Found. v. Land, 546 F.3d 373 (6th Cir. 2008); see also United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Sw. Ohio Reg’l Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 348 (6th Cir. 1998) (criticizing reliance on the “status quo” and upholding injunction requiring defendant to accept plaintiff’s advertisement, where plaintiff was likely to prevail on First Amendment claim premised on defendant’s previous refusal to accept the ad)."

    But it remains to be seen if this precedent can hold up against the "gay-means-stay" (I love this term. Who coined it?) rule that SCOTUS is signalling. Depends on which judges get selected to review this "emergency" motion, I guess. The 6th Circuit seems to be a garrison of Bush appointees.

  • 105. montezuma58  |  March 22, 2014 at 3:26 am

    I just read through the motion for a stay. The state spends much time arguing against heightened scrutiny even though it was not applied in the ruling. Then the state misconstrues rational basis review to mean any harebrained rationalization can save a law. And the state might really have a rational basis for the law they just haven't been able to articulate it yet. And that if just one of the voters in favor of the ban used that reason the law should stand. Basically the state is saying they should indefinitely be able to keep throwing shit against the wall in hopes that one piece might stick.

    When it comes to reasoning for a stay the state basically cites administrative inconvenience as then irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. Then as in the Utah case the state attempts to argue about the harm to the plaintiffs if the state should ultimately prevail. Never mind the absurdity of the state ostensibly looking out for the interest of the plaintiffs when by definition any lawsuit is an adversarial proceeding.

    It also ignores that the plaintiffs or other parties that take advantage of the ruling are almost certainly aware that the ruling is not final and are capable of weighing the risks of getting married in this situation. No one is being forced to have their legal status changed against their will by this ruling. It is totally discretionary on the part of those who wish to wish to take advantage of the ruling.

  • 106. Rick O.  |  March 22, 2014 at 4:53 am

    Saw a newswire piece that noted the local appellate bar association named their award for civility after Friedman. And yes he's a conservative. Take those together, the language he used regarding Regnerus, et. al. and his conclusion are very difficult to dismiss by anyone.
    My, what a slew of precedent – and argument debunking – in just four months. I would be very surprised if an appellate court overturns at this point. The Supremes still worry me – they have Hobby Lobby in front of them and just decided to hear the Elaine photography case with a view of overturning the NM Supreme Court. Scalia is exacting revenge with Robert's encouragement?

  • 107. David  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:18 am

    Thank you for your advocacy :)

  • 108. Rick O.  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:19 am

    "Gay means stay" is effective, and very loaded, shorthand. As we know from "special rights" 30 years ago (still smarting from that one) these things take on a life of their own. We need another phrase to counter all the "religious freedom" (another one that will live forever) bills and potential supreme court, "Scalia's revenge" rulings about to happen. Not original, but how about "god hates fags law"? Someone can do better.

  • 109. David  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:21 am

    Which SC justice has jurisdiction in the 6th?

  • 110. Chris M.  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:25 am

    Kagan.

  • 111. W. Kevin Vicklund  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:32 am

    On my way, hoping to see some very happy people. Must remember to grab tissues on the way out.

  • 112. Chris M.  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:39 am

    I'm flying a rainbow flag at my house today to celebrate. I have never done this before. I already wanted to do it when DOMA fell, but all rainbow flags were sold out that day. Now I'm better prepared.

  • 113. Sagesse  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:49 am

    Actually, he has his own 'think tank', the Austin Institute, funded by Witherspoon. Part of his compensation for his "study". Robert George has been hanging out at Princeton for years as the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.

  • 114. JayJonson  |  March 22, 2014 at 7:27 am

    Uh, Regnerus's dissertation advisor at North Carolina is now at Notre Dame and has been a fierce defender of Regnerus, even lying to do so. (There was a kerfuffle at the Chronicle of Higher Education where he was revealed as trying to pretend that he was a neutral observer.) So I think Notre Dame would hire him. And, of course, Baylor and Brigham, as you say, are probably panting to get him.

    But Notre Dame would have a problem since it attracts real graduate students who are planning careers in academia. No smart graduate student would want to be associated with Regnerus. It would not help their career prospects to have done a graduate degree with someone who has been exposed as a fringe figure who distorts science in the interests of dogma (and funding).

  • 115. Dr. Z  |  March 22, 2014 at 7:28 am

    Where LGBT is concerned, the US legal system has a long history of disregarding its own rules, guidelines, and precedents. We may be on the cusp of seeing an end to that, but the decision by SCOTUS to disregard its own standards and issue a stay of the Utah district court ruling means we aren't quite there yet. "Gay means stay" is the unwritten rule until SCOTUS decides otherwise. Good on the judge in Michigan for not issuing a stay – if SCOTUS wants to bend its own rules and permit injustice to continue until they get around to granting cert to a marriage equality case, then SCOTUS can damn well do its own dirty work and issue its own stay.

  • 116. Dr. Z  |  March 22, 2014 at 7:32 am

    Hadn't heard that SCOTUS has granted cert for Elaine photography – do you have a link for that? And I wouldn't automatically assume SCOTUS intends to overturn the NMSC. It takes four votes for cert but five votes to win.

  • 117. Chuck from PA  |  March 22, 2014 at 7:32 am

    Great that they are after the fact cleaning up the books. All other states should do this as well.

  • 118. JayJonson  |  March 22, 2014 at 7:36 am

    Also most people, even lawyers, do not understand academic sociology, so many people may actually have thought that his bogus study was real, that it had been distorted by the evil gay bullies and the mainstream media. The exposure of his nonsense was the great benefit of Judge Friedman's trial. Just as David Blankenhorn was exposed as an empty suit under cross-examination by David Boies in the Prop 8 trial, so Regnerus was exposed by the confrontation with real experts. If Blankenhorn was shown not to be an expert in the field he claimed as his own–just a man who has opinions–Regnerus was exposed as a charlatan who does hack work for funders who had determined the results in advance. Thank God for the good defense attorneys, the real experts who testified, and a judge who has a good bs detector.

  • 119. JayJonson  |  March 22, 2014 at 7:38 am

    Yes, thank you very much.

  • 120. Christian  |  March 22, 2014 at 8:03 am

    Personally I prefer to have the courts establish a constitutional precedent and for the legislature to formally recognize the new precedent (when it comes to individual rights)

    Particularly when it comes to marriage equality because then we don't have to worry about humiliating "religious freedom" addendums to legislation when it comes to our specific right to marry.

  • 121. Dr. Z  |  March 22, 2014 at 8:58 am

    Unless that grad student was preparing for a career based upon the homophobia business model. Unfortunately for their side, Homophobia Inc. doesn't have very good future prospects in the Western world.

  • 122. Lymis  |  March 22, 2014 at 9:32 am

    While it's wonderful – and accurate – for judges to continue to use rational basis to evaluate and smack down these laws, the fact that gay people clearly meet all of the requirements laid out by the Supreme Court to meet heightened scrutiny and yet continue to be denied it is ironically simply further proof that heightened scrutiny is needed, because courts continue to treat us as though we are not citizens due the same rights and protections as anyone else.

    Any other group that so clearly met the rules for heightened scrutiny would have been granted it decades ago. And yet, here we are.

    I'd like to see more judges lay that out first, and THEN declare that it ALSO fails under rational basis.

  • 123. WeAreFamily  |  March 22, 2014 at 10:03 am

    "Many Michigan residents havereligious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of theguarantees of equal protection under the law." Boom!

  • 124. Ragavendran  |  March 22, 2014 at 10:10 am

    Ah, that would be nice indeed! But that goes against the principle of judicial restraint. Same reason why Friedman didn't reach the due process analysis in this case. The 9th Circuit, in SmithKline, sorted out heightened scrutiny probably because it was necessary to do so in the juror discrimination context (I guess there was a rational basis to strike down that gay juror.) and still is being criticized heavily for judicial overreach!

  • 125. Ragavendran  |  March 22, 2014 at 10:13 am

    It's incredible. They cite the five or so rulings since Kitchen that have all stayed their own rulings in support of their motion, but when our side cites those string of decisions to support the unconstitutionality of the ban, that's a no-no!

  • 126. Tim  |  March 22, 2014 at 11:18 am

    Significant to see this in a decision – from p. 29:
    "This position, which the state defendants advance again in the present case, is
    just as ineffectual now as it was in Loving. Taken together, both the Windsor and Loving
    decisions stand for the proposition that, without some overriding legitimate interest, the state
    cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence."

    That's what it's been about….legislating families out of existence, making them go away as if they never existed, "Hello, we don't see you even though you're right in front of us." My neighbor, my co-worker… That doesn't fly any more.

  • 127. ebohlman  |  March 22, 2014 at 11:35 am

    It was up for consideration at yesterday's conference, but we won't know if they granted cert until they issue orders on Monday.

  • 128. JustMe  |  March 22, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    Stay issued by 6th circuit
    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140322/METRO

  • 129. ebohlman  |  March 22, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Temporary stay (expires Wednesday morning), it should be noted.

  • 130. davep  |  March 22, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    … come to take your last few meager opportunities to gloat at gay citizens being denied equal legal treatment, JustMe? Enjoy it while you can. Your side has lost, and for good reason. Welcome to America.

  • 131. Warren  |  March 22, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    With only 8 states to go to have 50% of all states that either have same gender marriage or in KY case must recognize legally married same sex couples it won't be long to reach to half way point when 50% of all states recognize same sex marriages.

    Since July 2013, CA, NJ, HI, NM and IL SSM became legal.

    KY, UT, OK, OH, VA,, TN, TX AND MI all have favorable DISTRICT COURT rulings for same sex marriages.

    In NV and OR the AG's have said that they won't defend their bans on same sex marriages. In the Abbott Laboratories and GlaxoSmithKline case the 9th Circuit ruled that Gays are a protective class. Most likely, NV and OR will also have a favorable ruling for same sex marriage. AZ is in the 9th Circuit Court jurisdiction with two lawsuits pending.

    "It is already unconstitutional to remove jurors based on race or gender. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extends those rights for the first time to a non fixed characteristic: sexual orientation. The decision could have implications for future lawsuits involving homosexual rights and privileges."

  • 132. JimT  |  March 22, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    It's been a very long journey on lots of bumpy paths for us to get to this point. It ain't over yet but the future looks great. But we must always be mindful that there will be those who will continue to find ways of suppressing our rights. I'm also concerned that if we lose the Senate in the 2014 midterm, we may have to fight off more attempts against our rights.

  • 133. Mike in Baltimore  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:23 pm

    On the Detroit Free Press site, there is someone trying to persuade everyone that the Michigan AG MUST defend the state.

    He forgets that the Michigan AG MUST have passed the Michigan bar, and (prior to becoming AG) be a practicing attorney in the state of Michigan. To be an attorney in Michigan, the prospective attorney must take an oath that begins:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm):

    I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan … "

    What does the Michigan AG (as an attorney) do when the state constitution directly conflicts with the US Constitution? Punt? The person at the Freep site says the AG MUST defend the state legislature and the Michigan state constitution, no matter what.

    Oh, and the person at the Freep site wants everyone to know that he clerked under a state Supreme Justice, thus 'knows' the law. Funny how he conveniently 'forgets' parts of the oath of office every attorney practicing in Michigan must take.

  • 134. JustMe  |  March 22, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    No Dave … not really.

    I'm actually looking forward to when y'all want to start getting divorced. When you find out that debts incurred during a marriage are community debt.

    When one "spouse" gets awarded temporary spousal support.

    When it costs you $25k in attorneys fees to get out of a "same sex" marriage, and then you end with a judgment against you for community debts.

    And then when the judge decides you dont get to live in the house, but have to pay the mortgage.

    Welcome to marriage.

  • 135. David  |  March 22, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Every know-nothing in Virginia is also very, very sure of this with regard to our AG. In fact, the delegate for whom the VA anti-marriage amendment is named, who coincidentally is not an attorney, has tried to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. Good times.

  • 136. davep  |  March 22, 2014 at 6:27 pm

    Gee, divorce is unpleasant? No kidding. You have no argument to offer, no defense for your position. You have reduced your participation here to mere childish trolling and petty snide remarks. Quit whining and grow up.

  • 137. SoCal_Dave  |  March 22, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    Are you trying to convince us we're better off in the back of the bus?
    You slay me, JustMe.

  • 138. ebohlman  |  March 22, 2014 at 6:54 pm

    There's a pretty common term for knowing about all that stuff prior to getting married: "adulthood". That's a good reason for restricting marriage to adults. It's not any kind of reason for restricting it to different-sex couples.

  • 139. Guest  |  March 22, 2014 at 7:35 pm

    It sounds like you have some personal experience in this area. Hardly unsurprising given your open vindictiveness.

  • 140. davep  |  March 22, 2014 at 8:38 pm

    Indeed. Sounds like JustMe is one of those irresponsible straight people who have been contributing to their 50% divorce rate. What an inexcusably 'adult-centric' view of marriage those people have. Why can't those people think of the children?

  • 141. Michael  |  March 23, 2014 at 12:44 am

    So because heterosexuals have made such a mess out of marriage and their lives, our families and children should not get the same rights? I don't think so.

  • 142. FYoung  |  March 23, 2014 at 2:25 am

    By the way, if we add to the 17 states where same-sex marriages are currently being performed the five states where they are not yet being performed but court cases have already found their same-sex marriage bans to be unconstitutional though the decisions are stayed pending appeal, then these 22 states add up to over 54% of the US population (38.23%+16.15%), according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in

  • 143. JustMe  |  March 23, 2014 at 4:01 am

    Yes I have experience in this area … I divorced my first wife after 3 years of marriage for infidelity after I forgave the first one.

    I have now been married for over 30 years and have 4 beautiful children.

  • 144. Zack12  |  March 23, 2014 at 4:31 am

    And according to the bible that many people use as a justification to oppose same sex marriage, your current wife is living in sin.
    How about we let people decide if divorcees can remarry or not?

  • 145. Steve  |  March 23, 2014 at 6:31 am

    That stuff can be even more unpleasant when a couple breaks up, has shared property but isn't married.

    Marriage actually makes breakups easier from a legal perspective.

  • 146. JustMe  |  March 23, 2014 at 6:53 am

    Wrong answer. Adultery is grounds for divorce in the bible. And we are all sinners and live in sin everyday.

    Remarriage after divorce for adultery is permitted by the bible.

  • 147. JustMe  |  March 23, 2014 at 6:55 am

    Matthew 19:9

    "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

  • 148. Zack12  |  March 23, 2014 at 6:57 am

    How nice, others think differently on that subject which is why we don't run this country according to what the Bible, Koran or any other religious book says.
    Everyone can come to a different conclusion of it.
    By the way, I don't follow your religion so I don't consider living with my husband to be in sin, thank you very much.

  • 149. StraightDave  |  March 23, 2014 at 7:50 am

    I think that might be enough to bring the whole house down prior to the 2016 election. The Robes asked for percolation… well, they got percolation.

  • 150. JimT  |  March 23, 2014 at 7:55 am

    Not everyone in the country believes in those moral standards or in the christian dogma for that matter. The United States is a democracy, not a theocracy.

    Good luck with that christian thingy!

  • 151. Zack12  |  March 23, 2014 at 8:09 am

    Oregon is likely to have marriage equality before the fall and PA is likely to be added to the states where bans have been struck down but stayed pending appeal.
    That will up the total even more.

  • 152. Christian  |  March 23, 2014 at 9:57 am

    What's the status of the referendum there? I recall hearing efforts for an initiative this year to repeal the 2004 ban, is this correct?

  • 153. montezuma58  |  March 23, 2014 at 11:26 am

    They have collected enough signatures to bring it to the ballot this fall. The backers of that measure are waiting to see what the court will do first. The Oregon case will most likely end at the district court level if the ruling is in favor or marriage equality. If the court is favorable they will likely put their effort into defeating one of those so called "religious liberty" initiatives that will be on ballot this fall.

  • 154. Stefan  |  March 23, 2014 at 11:31 am

    No word if that will even be on the ballot this fall. I don't believe the other side has even begun collecting signatures.

  • 155. Christian  |  March 23, 2014 at 11:43 am

    I hope they emphasize both initiatives personally, it's good to repeal and defeat both discriminatory measures imho

    I remember I tried to collect signatures for Love, Honour, Cherish and I was so upset when they canceled the effort :/ I hope they don't cancel this repeal effort either.

  • 156. montezuma58  |  March 23, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    I believe the marriage ammendment has the needed signatures but they don't have to submit until July.

    You're correct about the other ammendment. They are fighting in court over the language that would appear on the ballot. They can't collect signatures until that is settled. I thought that that ammendment was already set for the next election. http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/03

  • 157. JustMe  |  March 23, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    If the US is a democracy, then gay marriage would be banned.

    The central feature of a democracy is majority rule.

    The USA is a representative republic.

  • 158. Zack12  |  March 23, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    Yup, which is why the majority doesn't always get to decide laws for minority groups.

  • 159. Rose  |  March 23, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    You forgot Minnesota in August of 2013……and by the way, California came back in June 2013, not July!!!

  • 160. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 23, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    It's a good thing the United States isn't a theocracy.

  • 161. Guest  |  March 23, 2014 at 9:09 pm

    What do your children think of you trying to taunt, denigrate, defame, and vilifying loving couples whose only wish is to enter into institutions available to everyone else? No doubt they're ashamed.

  • 162. Ragavendran  |  March 23, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    Nice article about Judge Friedman. Long, but worth the read.
    http://www.freep.com/article/20140323/COL04/30323

    "Yet judges, no less than those whose lives their rulings transform, are products of their personal experience. And even if he wanted to, Friedman can’t un-ring the bell that began ringing the day a very pregnant Judy Levy walked into his chambers, and resonates still when he sees the children she and her partner have raised together."

  • 163. Tim  |  March 23, 2014 at 9:46 pm

    Good article. Thanks.

  • 164. davep  |  March 23, 2014 at 11:14 pm

    More specifically, it is a CONSTITUTIONAL representative republic. Which means we don't allow our legislature or our general public to enact laws that violate the Constitution and harm a group of citizens while serving no legitimate purpose, no matter how badly some ignorant bigots may want to. Deal with it.

  • 165. Schteve  |  March 24, 2014 at 4:08 am

    They are Christian sharia laws.

  • 166. Equality On TrialMichigan&hellip  |  March 24, 2014 at 9:01 am

    […] recognition of same-sex marriages performed over the weekend after a federal district court judge struck down the state’s marriage ban last […]

  • 167. Michael Grabow  |  March 24, 2014 at 9:32 am

    Great read, thank you.

  • 168. Equality On TrialSame-sex&hellip  |  March 25, 2014 at 10:05 am

    […] the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to put their case on a fast-track, and to deny the state’s request to stay the district court’s order striking down the […]

  • 169. Equality On TrialACLU of &hellip  |  March 27, 2014 at 11:33 am

    […] to force Michigan to recognize over 300 same-sex marriages that were performed legally after a federal district court ruled that the state’s ban is unconstitutional. A new report says the ACLU of Michigan is […]

  • 170. cheap Cowboys jerseys from china  |  July 30, 2014 at 10:56 am

    The wholesale cheap Packers jerseys china of an advanced lightweight material for maximum performance.
    cheap Cowboys jerseys from china http://virtualmoneyfishing.com/images/Thumbs1.html

  • 171. Equality On TrialMichigan&hellip  |  August 7, 2014 at 1:58 am

    […] other words, the same-sex marriages that were performed after the district court’s ruling that struck down Michigan’s ban, but before the Sixth Circuit issued a stay, are legal […]

TrackBack URL

Trackback this post

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!