Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

[thesometimesaint]

I agree, SS--they are two different things. Unfortunately one is often used as a starting point for the other.

I appreciate LDS leadership's emphasis in recent years on treating everyone with kindness and respect, regardless of sexual orientation.

 

Very unfortunate.

 

I think how we treat people says more about us than about them.

[Daniel2]

BREAKING: Federal Court Rules TEXAS Ban On Gay Marriage To Be Unconstitutional,

Ruling Is STAYED For Now

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ban-on-gay-marriage-ruled-unconstitutional-5270099.php

Via the San Antonio Express-News:

A federal judge in San Antonio has declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, however, also issued a stay, meaning the ban stays in effect for the time being. One lesbian couple had to go to Massachusetts to get married, and they want Texas to recognize the union. A second gay couple have a courtship of 17 years and want to get married here in their home state. Both sued the state in federal court aiming to overturn the ban on same-sex marriage, saying it is unconstitutional.

[Daniel2]

Here's a summary of the ruling and reactions:

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN TEXAS BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE

BY ANDY TOWLE

A federal judge has struck down Texas' ban on gay marriage, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the Edie Windsor case to do so.

Two couples are involved in the case. Mark Phariss and Victor Holmes decided to file suit after being denied a license in San Antonio in October. And Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman, who were married in Massachusetts, say Texas officials are violating their rights and those of their child by not recognizing their marriage. Attorney Daniel McNeel Lane represents both couples.

LoneStarQ reports:

U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia granted a preliminary injunction that would bar Texas from enforcing the bans pending trial.

However, Garcia stayed his decision pending an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Even if he had not stayed the decision, the preliminary injunction would have applied only to the two same-sex couples who filed the lawsuit challenging the marriage bans, known as DeLeon v. Perry.

“The issue before this court is whether Texas’ current definition of marriage is permissible under the United States Constitution,” Garcia wrote in his 48-page decision. “After careful consideration, and applying the laws as it must, the Court holds that Texas’ prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process,” Garcia wrote. “Texas’ current marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity for no legitimate reason. Accordingly, the Court finds these laws are unconstitutional and hereby grants a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing Texas’ bans on same-sex marriage.”

LoneStarQ adds:

In granting the preliminary injunction Garcia found the plaintiffs met a four-pronged test: They showed a likelihood of success at trial; they showed that continued enforcement of the marriage bans would cause irreparable harm; they showed that this harm outweighs any potential harm to the defendants; and they showed that an injunction would serve the public interest.

The case went before Garcia in February.

The Dallas Morning News adds:

“Today’s court decision is not made in defiance of the great people of Texas or the Texas Legislature, but in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent,” he said in his order. “Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our U.S. Constitution.”

But Garcia’s ruling, while a major victory for groups seeking to make marriage legal for gay and lesbian couples nationwide, will not win them Texas marriage licenses anytime soon.

Although Garcia issued a preliminary injunction against the state’s enforcing its 2003 law and 2005 constitutional amendment that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, he stayed it from taking effect until his ruling can be reviewed on appeal.

Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is running for governor, is almost certain to appeal. Most legal experts expect Garcia’s ruling, or similar ones by federal judges in other states, to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case he ruled on was brought by two gay men from Plano who want to get married and two Austin lesbians who want Texas to recognize their out-of-state marriage. It is one of three federal lawsuits challenging the Texas ban — and the furthest along. Nationally, similar battles are underway in federal courts in 23 states.

Federal judges in Kentucky, Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma have all struck down state bans on gay marriage since the Supreme Court DOMA decision last June.

The part of the four pronged test was particularly compelling to me, finding that banning gay marriage harms gay couples and their families, and does little/no harm to others.

[mormonnewb]

Here's a summary of the ruling and reactions:

The part of the four pronged test was particularly compelling to me, finding that banning gay marriage harms gay couples and their families, and does little/no harm to others.

 

What I found most shocking (and encouraging) is that yet another court has ruled that a ban on SSM has no rational basis.  This is going to make it very difficult for the Supremes to overturn these rulings.  It would be a different story if the courts had ruled that the SSM ban was subject to heightened or strict scrutiny analysis.  At that point, the Supremes could simply say, "Hey, dum dums!  You used the wrong test.  Try again." (Obviously, I'm assuming Scalia would be writing this opinion)

 

But, in this case, the lower courts have used the most lenient standard available to the government and still ruled against these laws.  Therefore, in order to reverse these decisions, the Supremes will have to override the factual determinations of the five (and counting) lower courts that have ruled on the issue since June.  Given that they are "supposed" to give deference to the trier of fact, someone is going to have to present some compelling (and possibly, irrefutable) evidence that the SSM is so harmful that the Supremes have no choice but to strike down the "clearly erroneous" findings of FIVE lower courts.  If such evidence exists, it certainly hasn't been introduced in any case so far.

[Stone holm]

Especially since the Church has come out against such legislation.

Yeah given the recent speech by Dallin Oaks, I think it's not at all clear where the Church stands on these statutes passed in the name of religious freedom.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah given the recent speech by Dallin Oaks, I think it's not at all clear where the Church stands on these statutes passed in the name of religious freedom.

 

 I think Brother Oaks may have been playing a bit of the devils advocate there. But in case I'm wrong I just disagree. My religious right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

[Stone holm]

 I think Brother Oaks may have been playing a bit of the devils advocate there. But in case I'm wrong I just disagree. My religious right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

 

Not sure about that.  He has been building political alliances with the Evangelicals, not sure if his aim is to become the next Pat Robertson or exactly what.  Of course, it has been the effect of the anti-discrimination statutes and ordinances which the Christian Right has been citing when they claim victimhood.  I remember back in Indiana back in the 50's and 60's there was a strong sentiment that private business owners shouldn't be forced to do business with blacks -- it was an old school libertarian position that hasn't died out, occasionally you would have Ryan Paul slip and give voice to it.  It's basically the same argument, this time bearing a Cross.  The thing is, the power players here are torn between two masters: the Mammon worshippers who pay for their campaigns and the Christian Right who provide their votes.  The Mammon worshippers realize that this kind of political activity is going to directly and adversely affect their wallets because the gays have considerable economic clout, and so when it comes to a tug of war like this the Mammon worshippers in the conservative movement nearly always win out over the Christian Right.

[thesometimesaint]

Not sure about that.  He has been building political alliances with the Evangelicals, not sure if his aim is to become the next Pat Robertson or exactly what.  Of course, it has been the effect of the anti-discrimination statutes and ordinances which the Christian Right has been citing when they claim victimhood.  I remember back in Indiana back in the 50's and 60's there was a strong sentiment that private business owners shouldn't be forced to do business with blacks -- it was an old school libertarian position that hasn't died out, occasionally you would have Ryan Paul slip and give voice to it.  It's basically the same argument, this time bearing a Cross.  The thing is, the power players here are torn between two masters: the Mammon worshippers who pay for their campaigns and the Christian Right who provide their votes.  The Mammon worshippers realize that this kind of political activity is going to directly and adversely affect their wallets because the gays have considerable economic clout, and so when it comes to a tug of war like this the Mammon worshippers in the conservative movement nearly always win out over the Christian Right.

 

I would have thought this issue was resolved over 200 years ago. We(The US) are to keep religion and state separate. But we keep playing this silly game even though it comes back to bite us one the butt every time.

[Stone holm]

I would have thought this issue was resolved over 200 years ago. We(The US) are to keep religion and state separate. But we keep playing this silly game even though it comes back to bite us one the butt every time.

American history is riddled with certain tensions that pull back and forth. So far liberalism with a small l has always eventually won out. I have extreme optimism with the rising generation. It would be nice to not be on the wrong side of history, but we are in an awkward situation. And when people feel their own religious beliefs are threatened, the natural man in us tends to reach out to compel others to conform to our beliefs.

[thesometimesaint]

American history is riddled with certain tensions that pull back and forth. So far liberalism with a small l has always eventually won out. I have extreme optimism with the rising generation. It would be nice to not be on the wrong side of history, but we are in an awkward situation. And when people feel their own religious beliefs are threatened, the natural man in us tends to reach out to compel others to conform to our beliefs.

 

Agreed.

[Stone holm]

This is a shame, but was predictable.  The BSA would have been so much better off to have gone with the first compromise which allowed the Chartering Organization to make the decision with regards to both the Scouts and the Leaders. 

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2014/0303/Disney-cuts-Boy-Scout-funding

 

The Salt Lake Council in rejecting the first compromise, will not only probably lose the eventual war, but the damage to the Scouting program due to the ongoing cultural battle being fought by the sponsoring organizations using BSA as the battlefield has really no upside.  It breaks my heart to see the damage being done, that was so avoidable had they just gone with the first compromise and shifted the battle to the individual churches where it belonged in the first place.

[california boy]

KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL WON'T DEFEND STATE'S GAY MARRIAGE BAN; GOV. WILL APPEAL WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL

 

 

KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL WON'T DEFEND STATE'S GAY MARRIAGE BAN; GOV. WILL APPEAL WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL

BKentucky Attorney General Jack Conway (pictured) says he won't defend the state's gay marriage ban in an appeal of a federal court ruling ordering the state to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere, the Courier-Journalreports:

“Judge Heyburn got it right,” he said at his Frankfort office.

By appealing, he said, he would be defending discrimination “and that I will not do.”

Conway said he had prayed on the decision and felt he is doing what is right. He said that he was sworn to defend both the constitutions of Kentucky and the United States.

“It’s about placing people over politics,” he said.

He began choking up at the end of the statement before leaving without taking questions.

 

 

 

[Daniel2]

From the LA Times:

I was wrong about gay marriage

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79505781/

BY JOEL SILBERMAN

March 3, 2014, 12:57 p.m.

In the wake of a federal judge striking down Texas' gay marriage ban and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoing an anti-gay bill, I feel compelled to confess something uncomfortable: I was totally wrong about gay marriage.

I never opposed gay marriage on principle. I have always believed -- and continue to believe -- that a legal contract available to one pair of people should also be available to another pair of people. Because of equality.

But after seeing how the words “gay marriage” fired up conservative voters in 2004, I found myself arguing with friends both gay and straight that it was the wrong issue at the wrong time. “A lot of Americans had barely even thought about gay people before Ellen came out,” I argued hyperbolically. “They’re emotionally attached to the word ‘marriage.’ If we can make sure civil unions offer exactly the same legal protections as marriage, why not just do that?”

I was so naively, embarrassingly wrong.

Admittedly, I had a lot of company in my wrongness. I respected John Kerry for rejecting Bill Clinton’s advice to come out in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage during the 2004 campaign, but Kerry was towing the civil union line too. Four years later, John McCain and Barack Obama both espoused pretty much the same anti-gay marriage, pro-civil union view, before Obama famously “evolved” on the issue -- which was, in itself, a fairly extraordinary evolution of the word “evolve.”

But just because all of our leaders from right to left were wrong isn’t an excuse for me to have been so wrong, to have undersold my own values because I underestimated the capacity of my country’s character to grow, of my countrymen and women to open their hearts and change their minds. I underestimated their empathy.

That was wrong.

I was also wrong to underestimate the strength of marriage equality proponents who pushed this issue from fringe idea to historic inevitability in just nine years. Nine years! Think about it: There are 9-year-olds today just coming into consciousness for whom the idea that marriage equality was once a minority position will seem as incredible an abstraction as it would have seemed in 2004 that, 10 years later, it would be a growing majority consensus.

Those 9-year-olds will grow up to wonder how people like me could have gotten it so darn wrong.

In part, I was wrong because I forgot history: I overlooked how “separate but equal” treatments under the law have generally been a lot more “separate” than they were “equal.” And I was wrong because I forgot how people told African Americans in the 1960s that maybe it just wasn’t the right time yet.

I was wrong because I failed to see, as Andrew Sullivan saw, that the legitimacy of marriage would make gay relationships understandable to straights in a whole new way. I was wrong because I failed to see -- or chose not to see -- that just as the word “marriage” carries significant cultural weight among those who would oppose marriage equality, it also carries weight with those who seek it. Even if it’s just a word, that’s what makes the word important, and it’s more important to people who support marriage equality because they have something to gain while opponents of marriage equality have nothing to lose.

Ironically, I was even wrong about the idea of gay marriage being a political loser. Now it’s turning into a headache issue for Republicans and a winning wedge for Democrats. Who knew?! Not me. I guess I underestimated the political upside of being right. I hope I never make that mistake again.

Most of all, I was wrong because I failed to see how much better our society would be if we corroborated our assertion that all people are created equal with the logical corollary that all love is created equal.

And so I am not proud that I was wrong, but I am glad that I was wrong. I am grateful that I was wrong. Grateful to the friends who pushed unwaveringly for marriage equality, who told me I was wrong. Grateful to have to apologize to them for being so stunningly, stupidly, shortsightedly wrong.

Seriously, my friends, I’m sorry -- but thank you. I should never have doubted you, but because you pressed on, you have shifted the tectonic plates of history and made this country evolve. That sea change in public opinion on gay marriage makes me proud of my country, not for the first time, but proud nonetheless.

[Daniel2]

Judge to Rule Quickly on Michigan Same-Sex Marriage Ban

BY M. ALEX JOHNSON

The fate of Michigan's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage will be decided within two weeks, the federal judge hearing a lawsuit by a same-sex couple said Friday.

Closing arguments in U.S. District Court in Detroit centered on the credibility of academic studies examining whether children raised by same-sex couples are worse off.

Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, a lesbian couple from Hazel Park in the suburbs of Detroit, are seeking to overturn a constitutional amendment voters passed in 2004 to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. They say they want to legally adopt the three children they've been raising but can't because they're not legally married.

"We're not numbers. We're not a number,"Rowse told NBC station WDIV of Detroit. "We're just one family in the big pool that's here fighting for our kids' rights. That's all we're here for. That's all we have been here for."

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said that final briefs were due Monday and that he expected to issue a ruling within two weeks. If he overturns the amendment, Michigan would become the 18th state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Lawyers for Rowse and DeBoer sought to undermine the state's final scientific witnesses Wednesday and Thursday.

The Oakland County Clerk's Office said that if Friedman overturns the ban, it will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately.

First published March 7th 2014, 4:24 pm

What's interesting and relevant about the Michigan case is that it was the first time that controversial researcher Mark Regenerus took the stand to testify concerning his infamous parenting study that is widely cited by conservatives--including the UT Attorney General's office's appeal--as evidence that children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged. All other cases have cited Mr. Regenerus' research, but this is the first time the defense has called him as an expert witness.

[Stone holm]

I just wish they would get this issue resolved so it couldn't be used as a wedge issue anymore.

[california boy]

Utah paid $1,900.000.00 too much to fight the gay marriage ban.  Kentucky's goveronor is only paying $100,000 and will probably get the same results.

[Daniel2]

Federal Judge Issues Temporary Order That Tennessee Recognize Several Same-Sex Couples’ Marriages

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-judge-issues-temporary-order-that-tennessee-recogniz?s=mobile

Judge issues preliminary injunction in case over state’s recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages performed out of state.

posted on March 14, 2014 at 5:02pm EDT

Chris GeidnerBuzzFeed Staff

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Tennessee Friday ordered state officials to recognize the marriages of three same-sex couples during the consideration of their lawsuit challenging the validity of the state's ban on recognizing such marriages.

In considering the request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger wrote that "all relevant federal authority indicates that the plaintiffs in this case are indeed likely to prevail on their claims that the Anti-Recognition Laws are unconstitutional."

The plaintiffs, she noted, filed the case only on their own behalf, so the temporary ruling affects only the state's treatment of the three couples.

In reaching her conclusion to grant the preliminary injunction against the state officials, Trauger — nominated to the bench by President Clinton in 1998 — wrote:

At some point in the future, likely with the benefit of additional precedent from circuit courts and, perhaps, the Supreme Court, the court will be asked to make a final ruling on the plaintiffs' claims. At this point, all signs indicate that, in the eyes of the United States Constitution, the plaintiffs' marriages will be placed on an equal footing with those of heterosexual couples and that proscriptions against same-sex marriage will soon become a footnote in the annals of American history.

The lawsuit was brought by longtime LGBT rights litigator Abby Rubenfeld, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights and several local co-counsel.

Update at 6:45 p.m.: In a statement, Rubenfeld said of the ruling:

This is a huge win in Tennessee, and sets the stage for full marriage equality in this State. The Judge found that there is a likelihood that we will succeed on the merits–meaning a likelihood that the anti-equality statute and state constitutional amendment will be fully struck down soon. She also noted the consistent view of all of the post-Windsor courts in finding these anti-equality laws to be unconstitutional.

It is also significant that Judge Trauger, like most of the other courts that have ruled on these issues since Windsor, found that the laws cannot pass even the most minimal level of constitutional scrutiny. Every court that has considered these cases since Windsor have found that the laws violate the United States Constitution.

[Stone holm]

Utah paid $1,900.000.00 too much to fight the gay marriage ban.  Kentucky's goveronor is only paying $100,000 and will probably get the same results.

Have not seen anything inspiring in their briefs worth that much, and their PR was deplorable prior to filing. Nothing like publicly stating that you have a religious duty to defend a ban to tell the Court you are not trying to establish religion. They should have hired an attorney who was an avowed atheist if they wanted credibility.

[BCSpace]

Utah paid $1,900.000.00 too much to fight the gay marriage ban.  Kentucky's goveronor is only paying $100,000 and will probably get the same results.

 

So far, the courts are ruling based on better public opinion towards their own personal views, not anything legal or constitutional such as suspect classification.  The money is well spent on the expectation the the courts will follow the law.

[Stone holm]

So far, the courts are ruling based on better public opinion towards their own personal views, not anything legal or constitutional such as suspect classification.  The money is well spent on the expectation the the courts will follow the law.

Didn't really get that from the briefs

[thesometimesaint]

So far, the courts are ruling based on better public opinion towards their own personal views, not anything legal or constitutional such as suspect classification.  The money is well spent on the expectation the the courts will follow the law.

 

Two bedrock ideas embedded in the US Constitution are the separation of church and state, and the equal protection clause. The/Any church has the right to recognize or not recognize anything they want applying to their members. However that has little to nothing to do with what the state recognizes as a right of its citizens.

[california boy]

So far, the courts are ruling based on better public opinion towards their own personal views, not anything legal or constitutional such as suspect classification.  The money is well spent on the expectation the the courts will follow the law.

Can you tell us how you came up with that idea?  Not a single brief mentions anything about public opinion.  If anything the rulings are going against public opinion (how they voted) and relying on the equal protection clause which is embedded in the constitution.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I trust the church General Authorities more than any supreme court.

[Stone holm]

I trust the church General Authorities more than any supreme court.

So you want a theocracy?

[Daniel2]

Judge strikes down Michigan ban on gay marriage; state asks for a stay

http://www.freep.com/article/20140321/NEWS06/303210121/Judge-strikes-down-Michigan-ban-gay-marriage-unconstitutional

6:54 PM, March 21, 2014

By Tresa Baldas, Elisha Anderson and Bill Laitner

In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman today struck down Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony, just like their heterosexual counterparts.

And unlike other federal judges who have decided similar cases across the country, Friedman did not stay his ruling, prompting Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette to file an emergency stay request to prevent gay couples from marrying right away. That includes the two plaintiffs in the case: Hazel Park nurses April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who fought for the right to marry and adopt each other’s special needs children.

"It's just amazing," said DeBoer, who wiped tears and hugged her parnter after learning of Friedman’s ruling. “This is what we’ve wanted for our family and families like ours…we are just so happy ... We got our day in court and we won."

Rowse was overwhelmed.

“We’re going to actually be a legalized family, a recognized family by everybody,” she said.

In his 31-page ruling, Friedman heavily criticized the state’s position that the will of the voters should have been upheld, noting that just because voters approve something doesn’t make it right, especially when it violates the Constitution.

“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.

“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,” Friedman wrote.

“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.’

“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.”

Schuette, meanwhile, vowed to continue to fight to uphold the Michigan Marriage Amendment Act, which 2.7 million voters approved in 2004 when they decided that marriage can only be defined as a union between a man and a woman.

“In 2004 the citizens of Michigan recognized that diversity in parenting is best for kids and families because moms and dads are not interchangeable. Michigan voters enshrined that decision in our State constitution, and their will should stand and be respected,” Schuette said following today’s ruling.

Schutte said he expects the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will grant his request for a stay, noting the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in Utah’s gay-marriage case and granted that state’s request for a stay.

“Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Utah case, I fully expect our request for stay to be granted,” said Schuette.

The state has long argued that the will of the voters should not be drowned out by a single judge. The state also argues that it has a “legitimate” interest in preserving the traditional family structure because — it claims — children thrive best when raised by married moms and dads.

Friedman, though, sided with the plaintiffs.

Today’s ruling, which came just as courts were closing, at first dashed hopes for the handful of gays who waited hours to be married.

"We've been waiting years and years -- I thought the judge would've thrown us a bone," said Laura Quinn, 46, of Royal Oak. Friday was the 18th anniversary of her relationship with her partner, who stayed home while Quinn waited four hours hoping to obtain a marriage license for the couple, she said. When the courthouse closed, she trudged off, vowing to return Monday to try again.

And minutes after she'd driven off, the judge's ruling came down, making it likely that Quinn and many other gays will be lining up Monday morning outside the office of Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown.

DeBoer and Rowse, are raising three special needs children together and want to get married. The also want to adopt each others’ children, but can’t because Michigan doesn’t allow same-sex couple adoptions. Rowse has two preschool-age boys; DeBoer has a 3-year-old daughter.

The two women filed their lawsuit in January 2012, initially raising only the adoption issue but then challenging the gay marriage prohibition as well.

Unlike most federal judges who have taken up the gay-marriage issue, Friedman opted last fall to hold a trial and give both sides the chance to present their arguments and scientific evidence – the bulk of which focused on same-sex parenting studies and child outcomes of children raised in such family structures.

The state’s experts said that their studies show that children of same-sex couples have poorer outcomes than kids raised by married moms and dads.

Friedman didn’t find the state’s experts credible, stating in his ruling that the testimony of one state witness was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.” He said the states four witnesses “clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majroity of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields.”

Friedman, however, said he did find the plaintiffs’ experts to be credible. They said their research showed that there were no real differences in the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples compared to those raised by moms and dads.

Friedman said he was convinced, stating that one expert’s research “convincinlgy shows that children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as the children of heterosexual married couples, and that same sex couples are just as stable as heterosexual couples.” He also wrote that denying same-sex couples the ability to marry “has a manifestly harmful and destablilizing effect” on their children.

The plaintiffs also argued that child outcomes should have nothing to do with the marriage issue anyway because having kids isn’t a prerequesite for getting married.

Friedman agreed, stating in his ruling: “Even today, the stae of Michigan does not make fertility or the desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.’

Meanwhile, legal experts believe the gay-marriage debate ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet issued a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage. In June 2013, the nation’s highest court did strike down a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in declaring that gay couples married in states where it’s legal must receive the same federal benefits as their heterosexual counterparts. But it stopped short of finding that all gay people have a fundamental right to marriage. That same day in 2013, the high court also left in place a lower court decision that said California’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. That ruling made sex-sex marriage legal in 13 states and the District of Columbia, and allowed four other states to follow suit.

Dana Nessel, one of the lawyers for DeBoer and Rawse, said the patchwork of legislation involving same-sex marriage has led to chaos, specifically for same-sex couples who are legally recognized in one state, but then move to another and have no legal recognition. It’s especially problematic come tax time, she said, noting same-sex couples, depending on where they live, have to file separately because their marriage isn’t recognized.

“This has to be resolved,” Nessel said. “This can’t continue. You can’t have this patchwork system anymore.”