Comments

  1. Zlick says

    I’m losing count, which makes me giddy. Is this 18? Loving the momentum, and these moms are just so wonderful to be raising these kids … I’m glad this will bring their family so much joy and comfort and peace.

  2. Agog says

    As a born-and-raised Michigander, this makes me so happy. I’ve never cared about weddings and all their symbolism and pageantry, but I do want to marry my boyfriend of 4+ years and always hoped to do it in the state we both call home.

  3. Jim Tideman says

    This is a significant ruling because it was a trial, and NOM and AFA expert witnesses absolutely fell apart under cross examination. Mark Regnerus will never be an expert witnesss again. Now all the religious right have to argue is their faith based belief, and that will never stand up in a court of law. Read the trial transcrips, there is now way an appellate judge can disagree with the findings. I hope Brian Brown and Tony Perkins realize this is their biggest loss since Windsor.

  4. Randy says

    “Judge Friedman did not stay his ruling pending the outcome of appeal.”

    This is wonderful news. As California shows, there’s no need for a stay, because:

    1. Violations of fundamental rights based on animus are violations every hour of every day. No delay is acceptable.

    2. Allowing some people to marry, and then stopping marriage, is no hardship to the state or to the married couples. This was the condition in California for 5 years, and somehow life went on.

    I haven’t read the judge’s decision, but it seems I’ll enjoy it.

  5. JackFknTwist says

    what a spectacular slap down for the false manufactured testimony of Regnerus’ testimony.

    he should never show his face in public again.

  6. DannyEastVillage says

    Closet-case Regenerus is finished in reputable academic circles. Maybe he could re-start one of the now-defunct gay-conversion “ministries” and then close it again after he gets busted f**king one of this colleagues they way all the rest of them have. Oh–except Marcus Bachmann, of course.

  7. Jim Tideman says

    I read the Judge’s ruling and it eviserates all the expert witnesses against SSM. This will have huge implications going forward. THERE ARE NO CREDIBLE EXPERTS AGAINST SAME SEX MArriage

  8. says

    “The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

    Awesome! Helluva public condemnation of his “professional ethics” by a federal judge. I wonder if UT has grounds to fire him yet… Her statement makes him look like a political hack instead of a college professor. He’s making UT look like fools. He’s not the best face for an institution of higher learning. They’ve publicly condemned him too, but they’re still paying him. Wonder if he’s tenured, and if he is, when’s his next 6-year review?

  9. Scotty says

    I knew sanity would prevail and am happy that I have not moved out of my home state! It will be a bumpy road ahead but I’m feeling all the better for it. Now, I just need to find a husband! LOL

  10. codyj says

    Regenerous can now move to KY and help Ken ‘half-baked’ Ham, build his ARK…they are BOTH terribly talented with their “great big” 3rd grade educations, WOW!

  11. JackFknTwist says

    it’s really encouraging to see all of us agreeing in our appreciation of this judge’s comments on Regnerus.

    ‘What does it profit a man to gain the whole world……..but for Attorney General of Wales ?’

  12. says

    Fantastic news and, as others have said, one great thing about it is how thoroughly the judge dismisses Mark Regnerus. The opponents who thought he was their golden boy and their ticket to holding back the tide are now learning that just the opposite is true: when the opposition is put on trial, their arguments crumble. His certainly have. Sets a great precedent. Onward!

  13. Chazwm says

    IT IS OVER…all the various states’ attorneys general that have to step up to support state bans on marriage based on the idea that lgbt parents are not sufficient will fail from this point on.

  14. Francis says

    *cue music* Another one bites the dust!

    Congratulations to April DeBoer and Jayne Rowe. They took on the state of Michigan and they won! That’s 9 out of 9 since Windsor. The train keeps on rolling.

    Will be interesting to see what happens up to and on Monday morning. Judge Friedman not issuing a stay on his ruling is as big if not even bigger news then striking down the ban as it puts the state in a tougher position to prevent marriage equality in Michigan immediately. Hope for more positive news out of Michigan the next few days!

  15. Joe in Ct says

    Congratulations MI. This is a long, throughly justified trial win. And the good news is that it will stand upon appeal. So happy for our brothers and sisters in MI!

  16. Zlick says

    Interestingly, now that I’ve read the ruling, the court struck down only the marriage ban; not the adoption ban for unmarried couples.

    Yes, the plaintiffs want to marry, and thus will be able to adopt each other’s children. But what about unmarried couples who don’t wish to get married? In fact, the case started as one of an unmarried couple who wanted to overturn the adoption ban … and marriage was added to the mix only years later. So I’m surprised the judge did not address this issue of the case.

  17. simon says

    People will queue up to get licenses on Monday. Like Utah, Michigan will appeal for a stay to the Supreme Court which probably will be granted again.

  18. woody says

    it’s great that the judge didn’t stay his decision as this gives us the opportunity to see if the supreme court has changed its mind when it comes to staying these decisions.
    will the supremes intervene as they did in utah?
    this judge is smart. he’s testing the supreme court at a time when much has gone in our favor post the utah decision. broad movement in the courts and in public opinion.
    how the high court reacts will provide a great clue for us all.
    thanks, judge

  19. JackFknTwist says

    “Not worthy of serious consideration.”
    “Not worthy……of serious consideration.”
    Not worthy of serious consideration.

    Unworthy.
    Bought testimony.
    Manufactured evidence.
    Manipulated result.

    ‘A Daniel come to judgement.’ Just wonderful ….and a judgement which will live in every submission by every lawyer involved in similar litigation.

    Has this tool Regnerus resigned yet ?
    Or been fired ?

    Koch Brothers should take a keen interest in this judgement. Their money has similarly sought to manipulate evidence, opinion and conclusions from these so called ” experts”.

    And this judgement is also a wider call to arms for lawyers to be exceptionally vigilant in pursuing conclusions derived from so called research by the self same experts……and indeed, every expert.

  20. Randy says

    Friedman did not address heightened scrutiny. It’s not clear how he would have decided that, but it is useful having yet another can showing that this discrimination is not even rational.

    Friedman also didn’t rule on due process, preferring to show restraint instead, but strongly hinted in a footnote that marriage bans also violate due process.

    Other words from the ruling that I enjoyed:

    On Regnerus:
    Moreover, of the only two participants who reported living with their mother and her same-sex partner for their entire childhood, Regnerus found each of them to be “comparatively well-adjusted on most developmental and contemporary outcomes.”

    More on Regnerus:
    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.”

    On being optimal:
    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.

    On federalism:
    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.

    On voters:
    In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people.

  21. Francis says

    Goes to the 6th Circuit first, Woody. What happens there could determine when/if marriages begin in Michigan on Monday and how long licences are issued.

    Today’s ruling is huge for the reasons some of you have mentioned…the “traditional marriage is about protecting the traditional family unit”….that argument has pretty much been destroyed here. Which is the “best” argument the other side had left. Without that, they’re left with virtually nothing else.

    I just want this to get to SCOTUS as soon as possible so we can end this once and for all.

  22. woody says

    francis, the supreme court intervened and mandated a stay in utah before it went to the 10 circuit. the 10th has yet to address that case.
    the supremes could do the same here.
    if they don’t, that will provide a valuable clue.

  23. Randy says

    And remember just last week Utah filed their appeal citing the now discredited Regnerus study. Those high-priced lawyers are now going to look like idiots for relying upon that study so much for their appeal.

  24. JackFknTwist says

    I don’t understand the technicalities of the Federal System, but I was under the impression that in the first instance a party must apply to the Trial Judge for a stay pending a full hearing of an appeal.

    If that application for a stay is refused that the same party can appeal against the refusal to grant a stay pending the substantive hearing of a full appeal.
    Now where does one go with one’s appeal against the refusal ?
    To a sitting of the federal court en banc, if there is such a thing, or to the Supreme Court Justice with overall responsibility for that Circuit or to the whole Supreme Court ?

  25. Mundus says

    What I find strange is that, from what I have read online over the last while, is that prior to the publication of the NFSS study that Regnerus was reasonably well regarded in his field as a young-ish upcoming academic.

    Given the judge’s finding that he (and I paraphrase) effectively sold his services to a third party to engineer a result to their taste, I wonder what on earth possessed the man.

    I strongly suspect this ruling may well have ruined his reputation beyond salvage.

  26. DARCY says

    Wow!!! Another state falls and it turns out to be pretty big. Not just the ruling but what went on to get it. First a judge appointed by Reagen threw out one of the two witnesses on the other side and then he totally discredited the other! That doesn’t happen every day in these cases, right? And it came on the same day that Maggie (Gallagher not Thatcher) declared defeat on behalf of the National Organization of Monkeys! This will have big repercussions as it seems to be a major turning point on marriage equality nationwide. I wonder what they’ll be saying about this over on Yahoo. I predict a large crop of Christian Conservative Republican sour grapes.
    .
    .

Leave A Reply