Comments

1
Wow, well put, Judge Friedman. How does one argue against this without sounding like either an idiot or a religious nut job? Not that it will stop them from trying.
2
That video brought me to tears. Way to kick some bigot ass, Judge Friedman.
3
Fantastic. Flawless Victory!
4
Now that is an evisceration. Bravo!
5
I also love the bit quoted here about the Regnerus Study.

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 [...] 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.


As Joe says at that link: "I want to gay-marry those scare quotes around 'study'!"
6
@5, I was just about to post that bit of the opinion. Feels good to read that section.
7
This bit is pretty sexy, too: "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."
8
This ruling is horrendous ... For anyone trying to defend discrimination in the future.

Bravo.

Bravo indeed.
9
@5, that quote is going to be used to exclude Regnerus and his "study" from future cases in other states, so that's a huge win. Are we taking bets yet on when we get to the tipping point of 26 of 50 states?
10
I particularly enjoyed the case history. The plaintiffs originally wanted to just challenge their lack of right to jointly adopt their children. The state sought dismissal for lack of standing. The judge pointed the plaintiffs to their unmarried status as standing in the way of their adoption and suggested they amend their complaint to be about the inability to marry in Michigan. They did. The state freaked. While poker-faced, I strongly suspect the judge was smirking inside.

And the rest is history! Awesome judge. A real mensch and a protector of real families.
11
This is the problem the bigots always run into in the courtroom: all their arguments are either lies (think of the children!) or inadmissible (Bible says! Eww buttsex!) so unless the judge shares their bigotry, they invariably get toasted.
12
@4: Evisceration? Those fuckwits never had any guts to begin with.
13
Activist judges.... going around promoting human decency and such... jerks.
14
A rather conservative decision with regards to the rearing of children within a family unit. :)

15
"There is, in short, no logical connection between banning same-sex marriage and providing children with an “optimal environment” or achieving “optimal outcomes.”"

That's judge-ese for "Wow, you are entirely full of shit."
16
@10 - Thank you. I hadn't known that part of the case history before. Makes the decision that much more delicious.
17
Let us raise a glass to Seattleblues' rising blood pressure and impending heart attack.
18
@17 Yes, definitely let's raise a glass to the WBC and Seattleblues of the world!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.