MLive has a recap:
The points for both sides of the debate are fairly simple. The state argues that voters made a rational decision in banning gay marriage “to encourage the raising of children by a man and a woman.” Attorneys for DeBoer and Rowse argue that numerous studies indicate same-sex parents are just as successful in raising healthy children as heterosexual parents.
Further, they argue, despite the 2004 vote, the law violates the couple’s civil rights. “It’s always mind boggling to me how people don’t look back in history at so many examples at other human rights battles and see a connection,” said Krista Contreras, 30 of Royal Oak, a gay marriage supporter who attended with her Vermont-married wife, Jami Contreras, 29. “At what point are people going to make that connection and understand that these are people and these are human rights.”
Protesters for both sides were outside the court house:
The day began with dozens of gay marriage opponents picketing the entrance to the federal courthouse in Detroit. Among them walked a smaller number of same-sex marriage supporters. “I peacefully protest in favor of Biblical marriage,” and “We support traditional marriage, one man-one woman,” were among the signs carried. The two groups protested peacefully without any clashes.
Many of the protesters came from Free Will Baptist Church in Ypsilanti. Gay marriage opponent Christine Weick, who drove to Detroit from Hopkins in southwest Michigan, became frustrated when she attended a hearing in October and was the lone dissenter. She said the wife of the pastor at Free Will Baptist Church saw a “frustrated” message she posted on Facebook and mobilized the congregation. “If it takes two weeks, I’ll be here every day,” Weick said Tuesday. “The Lord needs a voice.”
It’s a little sad that these folks have so much time to protest to try to block the rights of others.
The now-infamous Mark Regnerus is one of the state’s witnesses.
Time Magazine reports:
Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas, is among the state’s witnesses. In 2012, he published a study in an academic journal, saying young adults with a parent who had a same-sex relationship were more likely to experience unemployment and other social woes. He later acknowledged that his study didn’t look at children raised by stable same-sex couples.
And yet, even though his study has been widely discredited, it’s used again and again by marriage equity foes – because that’s all they have.
They also cited the oft-used “will of the majority”.
USA Today reports:
But during their opening statement, attorneys for the state argued that Michigan voters addressed this issue already — they banned gay marriage in 2004 — and their decision should stand. “This case is about one thing: the will of the people. … And the people of Michigan have already decided that marriage is one man and one woman,” said state attorney Kristin Heyse. “Plaintiffs may claim that voters were irrational or ignorant. That’s simply not the case … This was not the whim of a few, but the vote of a majority.”
And if the “majority” wanted to re-instate slavery? Or put the Japanese in internment camps? Or…?
Testimony will resume today. CBS Detroit reports:
A Stanford University professor is returning to the witness stand in a trial testing Michigan’s ban on gay marriage. Michael Rosenfeld will be cross-examined Wednesday in Detroit federal court. He says he’s looked at national census data of children living with same-sex parents and finds their progress through school is the same as kids with heterosexual parents. Two weeks have been set aside for testimony in a landmark trial that could overturn Michigan’s ban on gay marriage, the latest in a series of marriage-equality challenges across the country.
We have the facts and love on our side. They have nothing but half-baked studies, “tradition”, and a strong feeling of “eeeew” about LGBT Americans on theirs.