This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/michigan-begins-same-sex-marriages-ceremonies/2014/03/22/320ff2ba-b1c5-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Michigan begins same-sex marriage ceremonies Michigan begins same-sex marriage ceremonies
(about 7 hours later)
Same-sex marriages commenced in Michigan on Saturday morning following a federal judge’s ruling Friday that struck down the state’s ban on such unions. Hundreds of gay couples in Michigan hurried to courthouses to recite marriage vows on Saturday, a day after a federal judge struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriages, rushing to make their unions legal in case a higher court stays the decision.
Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum announced on Twitter that she’d authorized the state’s first legal marriage ceremony, and clerks in at least two other counties said they would open their offices Saturday to conduct weddings. Four county clerks, all elected Democrats who support same-sex marriage, took the unusual step of adding last-minute Saturday hours once the judge’s ruling was issued at 5 p.m. Friday.
U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman dismissed the state’s contention, after a two-week trial, that Michigan voters adopted the ban on the premise that heterosexual married couples provided the optimal environment for raising children. State Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) immediately appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and asked for a stay.
The clerks scrambled to reach their staffs to come Saturday to provide security, help with paperwork and issue marriage licenses.
Couples began lining up outside the courthouses hours before they opened at 8 and 9 a.m. With their children, friends and family members, they cheered and embraced, knowing their window of victory could be short-lived.
The appeals court told lawyers for the winning side they needed to respond by noon Tuesday, leaving at least a day and half before the ceremonies could be halted by a stay.
The clerks said the looming threat convinced them to open Saturday.
“There was an opportunity today when marriage for same-sex couples is legal,” said Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum, who announced on Twitter Friday night that she’d authorized the state’s first legal marriage ceremony and would open her office Saturday to conduct weddings.
“I couldn’t bring myself to force these couples who have waited so long to marry to wait until Monday morning” Byrum said.
“It’s been an awesome morning!” she said, then interrupted a phone interview to greet couples as they entered the historic courthouse. “Welcome to the county! Come on in!”
Byrum presided over 20 ceremonies, about half the number of licenses her staff issued Saturday.
Byrum said she started text messaging her staff — most of whom had already left for the weekend — at 5:09 p.m. Friday, just minutes after U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman’s ruling came down. “Can I interest you in coming in to work” she asked. Five people responded immediately.
In his ruling, Friedman dismissed the state’s contention, after a two-week trial, that Michigan voters adopted the ban on the premise that heterosexual married couples provided the optimal environment for raising children.
There is no proof that such a premise is true, Friedman wrote, and he declared the testimony of the state’s main witness “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.”There is no proof that such a premise is true, Friedman wrote, and he declared the testimony of the state’s main witness “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration.”
Unlike most of the judges who recently struck down bans in other states, Friedman did not stay his decision. Unlike most of the judges who recently struck down bans in other states, Friedman did not stay his decision. That could set off a rush to marriage like that in Utah, where a judge struck down that state’s ban. More than 1,000 marriages were performed before the Supreme Court issued a stay.
His decision was issued late Friday afternoon as clerk’s offices were closing. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) immediately appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and asked for a stay. Schuette, the state attorney general, said he was confident the appeals court would follow the Supreme Court’s lead. But the question was whether it would act before the marriages could begin.
But at least three county clerks announced Friday night that they would open their offices for special Saturday hours if a stay is not issued. That could set off a rush to marriage like that in Utah, where a judge struck down that state’s ban. More than 1,000 marriages were performed before the Supreme Court issued a stay.
Schuette said he was confident the appeals court would follow the Supreme Court’s lead. But the question was whether it would act before the marriages could begin.
“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 in a statement. “Michigan voters enshrined that decision in our state constitution, and their will should stand and be respected. I will continue to carry out my duty to protect and defend the constitution.”“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 in a statement. “Michigan voters enshrined that decision in our state constitution, and their will should stand and be respected. I will continue to carry out my duty to protect and defend the constitution.”
Friedman, 70, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and took senior status in 2009, said the state’s defense of the law was misguided. “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.”Friedman, 70, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and took senior status in 2009, said the state’s defense of the law was misguided. “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.”
Like other federal judges in Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah who have struck state bans, Friedman relied on two Supreme Court precedents: Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated state bans on interracial marriage in 1969, and last June’s U.S. v. Windsor, which overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act withholding federal benefits from same-sex couples married in states where such unions are legal.Like other federal judges in Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah who have struck state bans, Friedman relied on two Supreme Court precedents: Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated state bans on interracial marriage in 1969, and last June’s U.S. v. Windsor, which overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act withholding federal benefits from same-sex couples married in states where such unions are legal.
Unlike those judges, Friedman conducted a trial. In his 31-page decision, he said he gave great weight to studies presented by lawyers for the plaintiffs, lesbian couple April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who have been together for eight years and have three children, whom they cannot jointly adopt.Unlike those judges, Friedman conducted a trial. In his 31-page decision, he said he gave great weight to studies presented by lawyers for the plaintiffs, lesbian couple April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, who have been together for eight years and have three children, whom they cannot jointly adopt.
Those studies, Friedman said, showed there was no discernible difference in parenting competence between gay couples and heterosexual ones.Those studies, Friedman said, showed there was no discernible difference in parenting competence between gay couples and heterosexual ones.
By contrast, Friedman was scornful of a state witness, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus. Friedman said Regnerus’s study — which suggested children of those in same-sex relationships fared poorly — was shoddy and intended to please the anti-gay activists who had funded it.By contrast, Friedman was scornful of a state witness, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus. Friedman said Regnerus’s study — which suggested children of those in same-sex relationships fared poorly — was shoddy and intended to please the anti-gay activists who had funded it.
“The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged,” Friedman wrote.“The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged,” Friedman wrote.
Friedman’s decision continued an unbroken string of success in the federal courts for same-sex marriage activists, following the Windsor decision. The rulings, which include three that require recognition of such unions conducted in the 17 states and District of Columbia where they are legal, are now on appeal.Friedman’s decision continued an unbroken string of success in the federal courts for same-sex marriage activists, following the Windsor decision. The rulings, which include three that require recognition of such unions conducted in the 17 states and District of Columbia where they are legal, are now on appeal.