Michigan!

The ruling for the gay marriage case in Michigan was issued today. The Michigan constitution amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional at the federal level and is struck down. No stay was issued.

The announcement I read doesn't have a time on it, but it appears the ruling was issued after county clerks offices had closed for the day. The office in Washtenaw County will be open tomorrow for 60 couples who stood in line last October when the judge refused to issue a summary judgment.

Yes, state AG Bill Scheutte will ask the 6th Circuit Court (and then the Supremes) for a stay and an appeal. For those counting, this is the 9th such ruling in a row.

The lesbian couple, the plaintiffs in the case, celebrated with cameras watching.

On to the ruling:

On the Mark Regnerus study: Because of its funding from conservative sources and its appalling methodology …

The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.

This was a trial, so the state was able to gather up all their best scientific evidence. And if that was the best they could do, they ain't got nothing.

The state's argument that gay couples are a "sub-optimal" environment for raising children: There's a glaring inconsistency -- the state wasn't asking to ban other sub-optimal environments.

Taking the state defendants’ position to its logical conclusion, the empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians may marry, to the exclusion of all other heterosexual couples. Obviously the state has not adopted this policy and with good reason. The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident. Optimal academic outcomes for children cannot logically dictate which groups may marry.

The state's argument that changes to marriage should "proceed with caution":

But the calculus is fundamentally altered when constitutional rights are implicated because "any deprivation of constitutional rights calls for prompt rectification."
…
Were the Court to accept this position, “it would turn the rational basis analysis into a toothless and perfunctory review” because “the state can plead an interest in proceeding with caution in almost any setting.”

What about tradition and morality? Neither justifies denying constitutional rights.

The state's argument that marriage is a state question: Fine, except when constitutional rights are involved.

…without some overriding legitimate interest, the state cannot use its domestic relations authority to legislate families out of existence.

Dear sister, let me know where and when the wedding is. And let's party!