Michigan Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down; Judge Eviserates Mark Regnerus

Yet another domino fell yesterday as a federal court in Michigan struck down that state's ban on same sex marriage.  Making the ruling even more wonderful was the fact that the court's ruling eviscerated Mark Regnerus' "expert" testimony and trashed his right wing funded "study."  As I have noted before, one has to wonder when the University of Texas is going to find a way to ditch Regnerus who is harming the university's reputation as a reputable institution of learning and integrity.  Meanwhile, three Michigan counties intend to marry same sex couples today! Here is a portion of the Court's decision that rips Regnerus to shreds:

Although Regnerus touted the NFSS as one of the few studies to use a large representative pool of participants drawn from a random population-based sample, other sociological and demographic experts, including Rosenfeld and Gates, heavily criticized the study on several grounds. First, it failed to measure the adult outcomes of children who were actually raised in same-sex households. This is because the participants’ household histories revealed that many parental same-sex romantic relationships lasted for only brief periods of time.  And many of the participants never lived in a same-sex household at all.

"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 funder, 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.'

While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged. Whatever Regnerus may have found in this 'study,' he certainly cannot purport to have undertaken a scholarly research effort to compare the outcomes of children raised by same-sex couples with those of children raised by heterosexual couples. 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."

Ouch!!!   The Court when in to state that the religious beliefs and convictions of some citizens cannot deny other citizens of equal civil law rights.  I can already hear the Christofascists whining that they are being persecuted because they will no longer be allowed to persecute others. The Detroit Free Press has more details.  Here are highlights:

In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman Friday 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.

Just hours later, Washtenaw, Muskegon and Oakland counties announced they’ll open their clerk’s offices to issue marriage licenses on Saturday.

“Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage,” Friedman wrote in his 31-page ruling. “Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”

Friedman, who declared Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, went a step further than other judges across the country who have made similar decisions.  Friedman did not stay his ruling.

That prompted 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 partner 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.”

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.

“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.”

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 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 state’s four witnesses “clearly represent a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields.”