Other matters addressed by the Court today had to do with further discussion of the Michigan Department of Civil Right Report on LGBT Inclusion and whether or not it is 1) relevant, and 2) cumulative. The Judge ruled that it is relevant to the evaluation of the rational basis for keeping the marriage ban, and that while it may be cumulative, that does not warrant keeping it out. He has admitted the report as evidence.
The State then made a motion to the Court to dismiss plaintiff’s case because, it argued, Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof that there is zero value to a child to be raised by a mother and a dad. The State asked the Judge to take a cautious approach to changing the law. The Plaintiffs’ attorneys pointed out that not only as plaintiffs’ case negated every conceivable reason for the marriage ban, but that the State’s recitation of the standard is incorrect. The plaintiffs’ attorney pointed to the standard as set for the in the Judge’s ruling on the motion for summary disposition in October of last year as being the proper standard when reviewing a law that impacting historically disadvantaged groups.
Plaintiffs assert that they have created an overwhelming record establishing the utter lack of rational basis, and that given the multiple decision in other Federal Courts in the last few months, each saying that marriage bans are without rational basis.
Judge took the motion under advisement but said he wanted the trial to continue.
As an editorial comment, a motion for dismissal at the end of the plaintiff’s evidence is a routine procedure. This was not unexpected, and it is also quite common for a Judge to take matters under advisement and issue rulings after more of the case has unfolded. This is not at all indicative of how the Court will rule in the end.