Michigan Trial on Gay-Marriage Ban Enters Last Leg

Mar 7, 2014 Full story: WILX-TV Lansing 30

An attorney representing two Detroit-area nurses challenging Michigan's gay-marriage ban is focusing part of his closing arguments on expert testimony presented throughout the trial.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#1 Mar 7, 2014
We will know the Judge's ruling in roughly 10 days!
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#2 Mar 7, 2014
Yesterday, as Regnerus was testifying in Detroit, his own colleagues at the University of Texas denounced him. Sociology Department Chair Christine L. Williams said in a statement:

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus' opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus' work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.

Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/regnerus_test...

When will people finally stop using his bogus work in court?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#3 Mar 7, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
Yesterday, as Regnerus was testifying in Detroit, his own colleagues at the University of Texas denounced him. Sociology Department Chair Christine L. Williams said in a statement:
Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus' opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus' work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families. We encourage society as a whole to evaluate his claims.
Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/regnerus_test...
When will people finally stop using his bogus work in court?
I guess around the same time they STOP using Economic professionals as Expert witnesses regarding the parenting abilities of Gays and Lesbians!!!

As long as folks think they have a right to combine the parenting skills with the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians....these stupid things will continue to happen......my guess is the Judge will NOT look at either Regnerus's study or the one from the other State's witness who claims Gays and Lesbians are going to hell if we don't repent!!!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#4 Mar 7, 2014
I'm still mystified as to why the judge allowed ANY evidence relating to parenting as it related to civil marriage because parenting IS NOT RELATED TO civil marriage.

No other group of people applying for a marriage license has to prove that they can be good parents before they can get it. Why did they spend DAYS talking about it. The State of Michigan has already approved these two as both foster parents AND adoptive parents.

The only reason I think the judge allowed all this crap into the record is so that he can specifically disregard it in his decision. If he didn't allow them to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars talking to "expert" witnesses about child rearing, it would be a hook that the bigots could use in their appeal.

We'll see in a couple of weeks, won't we?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#5 Mar 7, 2014
eJohn wrote:
I'm still mystified as to why the judge allowed ANY evidence relating to parenting as it related to civil marriage because parenting IS NOT RELATED TO civil marriage.
No other group of people applying for a marriage license has to prove that they can be good parents before they can get it. Why did they spend DAYS talking about it. The State of Michigan has already approved these two as both foster parents AND adoptive parents.
The only reason I think the judge allowed all this crap into the record is so that he can specifically disregard it in his decision. If he didn't allow them to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars talking to "expert" witnesses about child rearing, it would be a hook that the bigots could use in their appeal.
We'll see in a couple of weeks, won't we?
I agree. Civil marriage and parenting do not have anything to do with one another. And for at least the past half century, amongst black Americans, marriage and childrearing are nearly mutually exclusive.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Mar 7, 2014
Agreed with all the above posts.

The plaintiff's lawyers made the obvious points that no other group is required to prove parental ability before marrying, procreation isn't required to marry, denying marriage to same-sex couples won't stop them from having & raising children, and allowing same-sex couples to marry will have no effect on opposite-sex couples marrying or raising kids.

The ONLY thing these bans do is harm the families gays & lesbians are going to create regardless.

I expect a favorable ruling sometime in the next 2 weeks.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Mar 7, 2014
I do love the arrogance of the state's last witness who admitted on the stand that he believes unrepentant gays will burn in hell, but that his bias had no affect whatsoever on his interpretation of the data.

HILLARIOUS!

The state put on a VERY weak case.

But what else could they do? All their other arguments have already been rejected by numerous judges.

They could just have said- "the people voted; that's all we got your honor".

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#8 Mar 7, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Agreed with all the above posts.
The plaintiff's lawyers made the obvious points that no other group is required to prove parental ability before marrying, procreation isn't required to marry, denying marriage to same-sex couples won't stop them from having & raising children, and allowing same-sex couples to marry will have no effect on opposite-sex couples marrying or raising kids.
The ONLY thing these bans do is harm the families gays & lesbians are going to create regardless.
I expect a favorable ruling sometime in the next 2 weeks.
So WHICH state do you want to FULLY HOMOSEXUALIZE NEXT ?!:)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Mar 7, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So WHICH state do you want to FULLY HOMOSEXUALIZE NEXT ?!:)
Oregon will likely be next.

They have a hearing before a federal judge on Apr 23rd. The Gov & AG have already said they aren't defending the ban, and no others were named as defendants, so any ruling by the judge will be final without any stays or appeals.

So I expect Oregon will officially become the 18th state with marriage equality, while the rest of the states are tied up in the federal appeals process.

Nevada is likely to be #19, for similar reasons.

Wyoming actually has a good shot at becoming # 20, because they are suing in state court, and their state Supreme Court already ruled in 2011 that Wyoming must allow a married same-sex couple to divorce.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#10 Mar 7, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oregon will likely be next.
They have a hearing before a federal judge on Apr 23rd. The Gov & AG have already said they aren't defending the ban, and no others were named as defendants, so any ruling by the judge will be final without any stays or appeals.
So I expect Oregon will officially become the 18th state with marriage equality, while the rest of the states are tied up in the federal appeals process.
Nevada is likely to be #19, for similar reasons.
Wyoming actually has a good shot at becoming # 20, because they are suing in state court, and their state Supreme Court already ruled in 2011 that Wyoming must allow a married same-sex couple to divorce.
Well, I said it as a joke.

But it's funny, and a shame, that Wyoming (where I used to live) is one of the non marriage equality states, because their state nickname is "The Equality State", and with good reason. They were the first to give women the right to vote, and the first to have a woman governor (although we here in Arizona have had 3 female governors in a row which might be a record).

How can you be "The Equality State" and yet at the same time DENY Equality so a significant proportion of your citizens ? Humans are funny animals.
juls

Marengo, OH

#11 Mar 7, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I do love the arrogance of the state's last witness who admitted on the stand that he believes unrepentant gays will burn in hell, but that his bias had no affect whatsoever on his interpretation of the data.
HILLARIOUS!
The state put on a VERY weak case.
But what else could they do? All their other arguments have already been rejected by numerous judges.
They could just have said- "the people voted; that's all we got your honor".
could have- but he just had to say it......hope his stupidity helps us.......may the judge be guided by reason and truth....just ask the Dali Lama.....he knows.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#12 Mar 7, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Civil marriage and parenting do not have anything to do with one another. And for at least the past half century, amongst black Americans, marriage and childrearing are nearly mutually exclusive.
I think you are missing an important idea. If parenting issues are presented in relation to marriage it is extremely important that we point o0ut the vast numbers of gays and lesbians who are foster parents or adoptive ones.

It makes it hard for the State to question the parenting skills for marriage of gays and lesbians if they have already said the people have the parenting skills to be foster parents or adoptive parents.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#13 Mar 7, 2014
eJohn wrote:
I'm still mystified as to why the judge allowed ANY evidence relating to parenting as it related to civil marriage because parenting IS NOT RELATED TO civil marriage.
No other group of people applying for a marriage license has to prove that they can be good parents before they can get it. Why did they spend DAYS talking about it. The State of Michigan has already approved these two as both foster parents AND adoptive parents.
The only reason I think the judge allowed all this crap into the record is so that he can specifically disregard it in his decision. If he didn't allow them to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars talking to "expert" witnesses about child rearing, it would be a hook that the bigots could use in their appeal.
We'll see in a couple of weeks, won't we?
Oh, how I agree: If the sole reason he allowed that stuff was to blast it to nothingness in his *response to it* as he renders a verdict, then I see the point.

I take further issue, though, in exactly the way you do here: Why? Why? Why? I think it's important to endlessly, endlessly demand to know why, why, why this is an issue if the antigay are not *concerned to this level* about bad straight parents -- because they aren't ... which is the very DEFINITION of bigotry.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#14 Mar 7, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I do love the arrogance of the state's last witness who admitted on the stand that he believes unrepentant gays will burn in hell, but that his bias had no affect whatsoever on his interpretation of the data.
HILLARIOUS!
The state put on a VERY weak case.
But what else could they do? All their other arguments have already been rejected by numerous judges.
They could just have said- "the people voted; that's all we got your honor".
He believes <-- These are the key words.

I shrug and find what he has pronounced to be a string of noises with zero meaning: That's it. If they have any meaning, then *instantaneously*, you can pronounce authoritative judgment on him and his ignoring what you say is PROOF that you have the right to ignore what HE says; I always find that the most brilliant way to do it.

Make your pronouncement, so that everyone can *literally witness* how he accords it absolutely no meaning. Then you say,

"Good; now you know -- and have demonstrated -- how I feel."

Ultimately, if you watch the "religious" closely, no matter what comes out of their mouths or their fingers online, they NEVER have an answer for this. They may think they do, but it's clear at that point that they don't.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#15 Mar 7, 2014
I have a feeling "last leg" pretty much sums up the entire course of the rabid, homophobic, anti marriage equality industry.

They'll live on, and still do a lot of damage, the way school administrators in Bachmann's district did, imo, or the way they do when braying about glbt people adopting, but they're effectively finished by any prevailing standard of social acceptability.
Sen Rick Saintpornum

Philadelphia, PA

#16 Mar 7, 2014
After these various trials I would love to audit one of Regnerus's courses to see what he's like in class, to see how many students sign up for his courses relative to other teachers, to try and find out how he's regarded generally around campus...I mean, apart from being denounced on academic grounds by his own academic department....

He's listed at ratemyprofessors and the comments are contradictory in some ways - is the class easy or hard, for example. Only a few comments are as negative as I would expect or mention his beliefs.

I expect his ratings would be far worse if he taught at a better or more eastern, western or northern university.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#17 Mar 7, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I think you are missing an important idea. If parenting issues are presented in relation to marriage it is extremely important that we point o0ut the vast numbers of gays and lesbians who are foster parents or adoptive ones.
It makes it hard for the State to question the parenting skills for marriage of gays and lesbians if they have already said the people have the parenting skills to be foster parents or adoptive parents.
We have 17 states now. I don't think it's really all that important that we get another state. In fact, it may be more beneficial for us if we get a judge that rules the opposite, i.e. that we DON'T have a right to marriage. Because once we get that, it may lead to a case getting to SCOTUS FASTER than would otherwise be the case. And we know that sooner or later, SCOTUS will have the final decision on this.
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#18 Mar 7, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I said it as a joke.
But it's funny, and a shame, that Wyoming (where I used to live) is one of the non marriage equality states, because their state nickname is "The Equality State", and with good reason. They were the first to give women the right to vote, and the first to have a woman governor (although we here in Arizona have had 3 female governors in a row which might be a record).
How can you be "The Equality State" and yet at the same time DENY Equality so a significant proportion of your citizens ? Humans are funny animals.
You are much too kind by calling humans merely " funny " .. Orson Welles said that even in the best of cases they were " half angel, half demon " ..

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Mar 7, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
We have 17 states now. I don't think it's really all that important that we get another state. In fact, it may be more beneficial for us if we get a judge that rules the opposite, i.e. that we DON'T have a right to marriage. Because once we get that, it may lead to a case getting to SCOTUS FASTER than would otherwise be the case. And we know that sooner or later, SCOTUS will have the final decision on this.
We already have that ruling in the Nevada case, but it will likely never get to the SCOTUS because everyone is refusing to defend the state.

What we need to get to the SCOTUS are opposing rulings from separate APPEALS courts.

That likely won't happen until the 5th or 6th circuit cases (Tx, KY, OH, MI) are ruled on sometime next year.

That's why I don't think the SCOTUS will have a case to take until the '15/'16 term.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Mar 7, 2014
To continue my thought:

In the meantime, we're likely to get Oregon, Nevada, and a number of states in the 9th, 10th, & 4th circuits. Depending on the scope of the appeals court rulings, we could be looking at 32 states with marriage equality by the time the SCOTUS finally takes a case.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Detroit Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr WARRIOR 19,475
Immigrants bypass Detroit for suburbs 10 hr Brainwashed again 6
Detroit mother to stand trial after 4-year-old ... 23 hr Steve 4
Alleged Makki murder planner arrested (Mar '07) Mon Unkown 36
NAACP Symbolically Buries N-Word (Jul '07) Mon Dog Man 52
My mom and I are having sex Mon Meanie 7
Shop Detroit on Small Business Saturday Sun the fifties 2
Detroit Dating
Find my Match

Detroit People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Detroit News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Detroit

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:01 am PST

NBC Sports10:01AM
Bills set to host Browns despite stadium damage - NBC Sports
NBC Sports10:41 AM
Christian Hackenberg's dad 'won't even touch' transfer talk
Bleacher Report10:47 AM
Can Bears Emulate Pats' Successful Gameplan vs. Lions?
Bleacher Report12:13 PM
Can Browns Survive Without Gipson?
ESPN12:34 PM
Raiola not fined for late cut block vs. Pats