A federal judge just ruled that Michigan's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional By Federal Judge
The Huffington Post | by Kate Abbey-Lambertz

Posted: 03/21/2014 5:12 pm EDT Updated: 03/21/2014 5:14 pm EDT
Print Article

Michigan's 10-year-old ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman's ruling says the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse filed a lawsuit against the state challenging the ban, enacted in 2004. The couple from Hazel Park, Mich. initially sought equal adoption rights so they could both adopt their three children, but Friedman invited them to expand their suit to include the restriction on same-sex marriage.

Read more @ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/michigan-gay-marriage_n_4985957.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016

[Gothmog]

1. This is a well written opinion

The key issue in this case was whether same sex couples would be good parents compared to straight couples. The judge rejected the experts offered by the state of Michigan http://www.scribd.com/doc/213770186/2-12-cv-10285-151-Michigan-Decision

The Court was unable to accord the testimony of Marks, Price, and Allen any significant weight. Marks’s testimony is largely unbelievable. He characterized the overwhelming consensus among sociologists and psychologists who endorse the “no differences” viewpoint as“group think,” by which he said he meant a politically correct viewpoint that the majority has accepted without subjecting it to proper scientific scrutiny. Marks undertook an excruciatingly detailed examination of the 59 published studies cited by the APA in support of its 2005 “Brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” in which it concluded that “[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.” Marks, as well as Price and Allen, faulted many of these studies for their small sample sizes, the non-random methods used to obtain subjects, and the fact that some lacked heterosexual comparison groups, among other criticisms. 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.

This is a great ruling on the issue of whether children are hurt or injured due being raised by same sex couples. The Court did some great findings of fact here that will make this case an important case on this issue.

[bigwillq]

2. K and R (nt)

[KamaAina]

3. Yes!

[Gothmog]

4. The last couple of paragraphs of the opinion are amazing

The key issue in this case was whether same sex couples made good parents for children (or could adopt children as a couple). The court made an amazing ruling http://www.scribd.com/doc/213770186/2-12-cv-10285-151-Michigan-Decision

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 other snow 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.

Accordingly,

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.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

5. The better it is, the less likely the federal appeals court will freeze it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024705663