Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA federal judge just ruled that Michigan's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.
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
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 714 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A federal judge just ruled that Michigan's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. (Original Post)
Lady Freedom Returns
Mar 2014
OP
The better it is, the less likely the federal appeals court will freeze it.
Lady Freedom Returns
Mar 2014
#5
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)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. Markss testimony is largely unbelievable. He characterized the overwhelming consensus among sociologists and psychologists who endorse the no differences viewpoint asgroup 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
(72,790 posts)2. K and R (nt)
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)3. Yes!
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)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 Courts 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. Todays 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
(14,120 posts)5. The better it is, the less likely the federal appeals court will freeze it.