|
Vertical Lime posted:The Michigan result  Do judges at that level publish the reasons behind their decisions? I would love to read that.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:
The Detroit News has a copy of it on their article about the ruling. I'm kind of surprised at myself, I'm not as jump-up-and-down ecstatic as I expected, just a serene feeling of happiness. Perhaps it is shock that is actually happened here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
gently caress yeah. Gay divorce-abortions for all, bitches!  e: link Nth Doctor fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:The Detroit News has a copy of it on their article about the ruling. Same, there was a sense of inevitability to it. Interesting that he didn't issue a stay. Does that signal that he's willing to let them continue while Michigan appeals it (which they will because our governor is craven). Edit: Text of the judge's ruling. Judge Friedman posted: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 under, 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. Time was of the essence at the time of the funder’s comments in April 2011, and when Dr. Regnerus published the NFSS in 2012, because decisions such as Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010), and Windsor v. United States, 833 F. Supp. 2d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), were threatening the funder’s concept of “the institution of marriage.” ~*~dusted~*~ Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Mar 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Same, there was a sense of inevitability to it. Interesting that he didn't issue a stay. Does that signal that he's willing to let them continue while Michigan appeals it (which they will because our governor is craven). The ban got struck down on a rational basis review, which means the state couldn't convince the judge that it had a singular, even a speculative, rational reason to support the law. In other words, the judge didn't believe a single drat thing the state said. Question, have any of the federal district court decisions striking down similar bans in other states like Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, etc. use anything other than rational basis? Is the 1st Circuit still the only one to recognize sexual orientation as a protected class?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
I love watching this map get bluer and bluer. It looks like us Wisconsinites should probably join our neighbors in the 21st century soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
This ruling is a really good read.good point, sir posted:Second, the optimal child-rearing justification for the MMA is belied by the state’s own marriage requirements. The prerequisites for obtaining a marriage license under Michigan law do not include the ability to have children, a requirement to raise them in any particular family structure, or the prospect of achieving certain “outcomes” for children. By the same token, the state does not allow for the annulment of a marriage once a couple discovers it cannot conceive, or if the family structure changes, or if the couple’s children do poorly in school.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
My favorite part of these rulings is the obligatory slap in the face to Scalia:quote:Importantly, the Windsor Court foresaw that its ruling would precede
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
baw posted:My favorite part of these rulings is the obligatory slap in the face to Scalia: This ruling is just one SICK BURN after another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
lmaoquote:Fourth, the state defendants’ position suffers from a glaring inconsistency. Even assuming that children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised by heterosexual married couples, the state defendants fail to explain why Michigan law does not similarly exclude certain classes of heterosexual couples from marrying whose children persistently have had “sub-optimal” developmental outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Here is the emergency stay they are trying to submit  https://www.dropbox.com/s/dh8ihqn0swu8em5/DeBoer%20-%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Stay%20-%20Sixth.pdf?n=63433056
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Here is the emergency stay they are trying to submit That is some amazing mix of "nuh uh" and flailing. I'm expecting the Sixth(?) Circuit to issue a stay but in my (admittedly biased) opinion, Judge Friedman made a pretty airtight argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
quote:The Michigan Marriage Amendment does not discriminate based Oof. That argument didn't work when it was brought before the court in Loving v Virginia, and it won't work now, Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Were they really trying to trot that out. "What do you mean? Gays and lesbians can totally get married--to each other." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Here is the emergency stay they are trying to submit It's nice when even their appeal looks from the start like it has no chance of success. There's basically no chance this appeal doesn't fail in 2014 and Michigan marriages start sometime soon after (I hope)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Is it possible that the appeals that have been submitted to the US Supreme Court could backfire and get gay marriage legalized in all 50 states?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Nothing has been appealed to the SCOTUS as of yet. Right now everything is at the various circuit courts of appeals. It likely won't reach the supreme court until it passes through at least one circuit court. Once a circuit rules, though, essentially all bans in that circuit are void.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Is it possible that the appeals that have been submitted to the US Supreme Court could backfire and get gay marriage legalized in all 50 states? If Texas or another case (widely assumed it'll be Texas that's the difference-maker) gets to the Supreme Court, yes. The current court already has 5 votes needed and would just flat-out legalize it nation-wide if it comes back to them. It will likely happen before Obama leaves office, which is great because Scalia's dissent will be glorious and tear-soaked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:If Texas or another case (widely assumed it'll be Texas that's the difference-maker) gets to the Supreme Court, yes. The current court already has 5 votes needed and would just flat-out legalize it nation-wide if it comes back to them. It will likely happen before Obama leaves office, which is great because Scalia's dissent will be glorious and tear-soaked. Scalia's dissent will be illegible due to the sheer amount of tears and spittle on it. I can't wait 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Scalia's dissent will be prescient and filled with useful analysis. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:It's nice when even their appeal looks from the start like it has no chance of success. There's basically no chance this appeal doesn't fail in 2014 and Michigan marriages start sometime soon after (I hope) Did you not read the motion? It clearly says that "The State Defendants are likely to succeed on appeal" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Hahahhahahahaah So you remember Bill Donohue, the anti-gay Catholic leader who applied and got accepted to march in the NYC pride parade? He just backed out. it was all a scam to get the gays to reject him so he could pull the "see?! they're hypocritical bullies too!" card and that it backfired horribly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Hahahhahahahaah They should have allowed him to march (not really) but blocked him from view by surrounding him with giant, flexing bears.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:They should have allowed him to march (not really) but blocked him from view by surrounding him with giant, flexing bears. I feel like maybe the crowd reaction would have been sufficient :-) That ruling is a very pleasant read!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
No news articles yet but the Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) clerk's office will be open from 9am to 1pm for marriages. No 3 day wait or fee! One of the spouses must live in the county. e: Detroit Free Press
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:No news articles yet but the Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) clerk's office will be open from 9am to 1pm for marriages. No 3 day wait or fee! One of the spouses must live in the county. The Ann Arbor area is pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
My boyfriend and I talked it over and we're going to try and get a marriage license from our county clerk Monday morning. We've been planning on getting married for awhile now and figured we should take advantage of the window now and have the actual ceremony/party sometime next year. Our county clerk has said she will "follow the law" and I have it on good authority that she's "down with the gays" so I'm cautiously optimistic. Ingham County (Lansing) clerk Barb Byrum (you might remember her as the state legislator who got banned from the floor for say vagina and generally being a thorn in the anti-choice establishment's side) has indicated that they'll be issuing licenses first thing in the morning Monday. Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:The Michigan result  I can get married if I ever find a partner now! No lie, I literally fist-pumped.Nostalgia4Infinity posted:My boyfriend and I talked it over and we're going to try and get a marriage license from our county clerk Monday morning. Oh Man! Good luck, and if it goes through...congrats! 
Nevileen fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:My boyfriend and I talked it over and we're going to try and get a marriage license from our county clerk Monday morning. Good luck! This will be the longest weekend *ever*.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Kalamazoo Bishop Paul J. Bradley has something to say!An rear end in a top hat in a Red Cap posted:The decision handed down today by Federal District Court Judge Bernard Friedman in the case of DeBoer vs. Snyder is unfortunate and regrettable. With the stroke of a pen, the meaning of marriage, one of society’s most sacred institutions and the very foundation of the family, has been redefined in our state. As a result of this decision, the amendment to the Michigan constitution, which reflected the understanding of the majority of the citizens of this State, and which was designed to protect the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, has been undone by judicial decision. cruft fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Mar 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
cruft posted:Kalamazoo Bishop Paul J. Bradley has something to say!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:My boyfriend and I talked it over and we're going to try and get a marriage license from our county clerk Monday morning. Congrats preemptively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
You know, I just realized something. Legalizing same-sex marriage is indeed changing the definition of marriage. But why is that a bad thing? Marriage has been redefined throughout the course of history, and if you want to strengthen it as an institution, wouldn't it logically follow that you should allow more people to get married (and thus increase the importance of marriage in our society)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
AYC posted:You know, I just realized something. Gays are icky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Also, I would advice any Michigan Goons to proceed with caution if you plan to get married. Remember that Utah's ban was upheld after a stay, and since SCOTUS was responsible for that, it seems they'll also keep the ban intact during the appeals process.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
AYC posted:You know, I just realized something. It isn't changing the definition really, what changed the definition was the hordes of laws passed to suddenly make gay marriage illegal. Previously, most marriage laws didn't actually bother to specify "no gays", which is the whole reason laws and amendments specifically against it were "needed".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Licenses getting handed out in Washtenaw, Oakland, and Muskegon counties in the morning. Yes, this morning. AYC posted:You know, I just realized something. A lot more people than you'd think still think (even in the year 2014) that any marriage not between a straight Christian white man and a straight Christian white woman (preferably with at least one owning property) is a bad thing. They don't like interracial marriage, they don't like atheist marriage, and they don't like gay marriage. Thankfully, a good portion of them are on Freep or don't use the Internet, and also they're old so there's reduced chance you have to put up with them frequently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Republican Attorney General Dude posted:"In 2004, the citizens of Michigan recognized that diversity in parenting is best for kids and families because moms and dads are not interchangeable," Schuette said. "Michigan voters enshrined that decision in our state constitution, and their will should stand and be respected." Wait, what? What the gently caress is he saying? If "diversity in parenting is best for kids and families" shouldn't he be pro-gay marriage? Or did he just word that badly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
AYC posted:Wait, what? What the gently caress is he saying? He probably meant 'bad' instead of best. e: Or he's saying that you need a mom and a dad instead of two of either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
AYC posted:Wait, what? What the gently caress is he saying? Diversity in marriage! One of each kind of hoo-ha for every child! A chicken in every pot!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2014 05:28
|
|