Several federal district court "judges" and at least one state court "judge" have recently thrown out the various state constitutional amendments where the state will only recognize a marriage when it consists of one man and one woman. These recent cases have cited the slanderous Windsor majority opinion as precedent, even though all it was supposed to do was force the federal government to apply its marriage benefits upon those same-sex couples a state considers "married". But a couple of those recent rulings are real hoots.
In Michigan, "Judge" Bernard Friedman ruled that the Michigan Marriage Amendment (MMA) was unconstitutional. This was a case where two lesbians living together claimed Michigan's marriage laws barred them from adopting children. It started out in 2011 as a case against Michigan's adoption regulations, which says a married couple or a single person could adopt a child, but not an unmarried couple. Since the federal court believed the lesbians would lose that case, the court said the plaintiffs could amend their complaint saying the MMA was unconstitutional. "Judge" Friedman waited until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Windsor before beginning the Michigan trial.
Again, this was a case where two lesbians living together said they couldn't adopt children. Beginning two years prior to filing their initial suit, the two women had adopted three children. Get that? Two lesbians who had adopted three children said they couldn't adopt children. This was the basis for "Judge" Friedman to throw out the MMA. Friedman stayed his ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. We know how that will go.
The Texas case is even better. Again, a federal district court "judge" ruled that Texas' legal definition of marriage was also unconstitutional, but stayed his ruling as well. But I'm not going to discuss that. Earlier this week, a Texas state "judge" in San Antonio decided to use that federal ruling as a basis to throw out Texas' amendment as well (sorry, I don't have a link to the ruling). And why? Because two lesbians who were "legally" "married" in Washington D.C. and lived in Texas wanted to get a "divorce". Get that? A Texas "judge" said the Texas law kept a "married" same-sex couple from getting a same-sex "divorce".
I'm going to explore this whole same-sex "marriage" thing further in another post, but I want to add something here. The federal government has completely and illegally usurped all laws related to marriage in this country. Even its rulings on polygamy and interracial marriage didn't do this since the basic definition of marriage recognized by every state were never changed by those rulings. But in these cases? There's no point in having states regulate it since it is obvious the federal government has taken over this regulation. As a result, this federal government usurpation is nothing more than a full abandonment of the institution of marriage in the U.S. I mean, look at the Texas same-sex "divorce" case. Two lesbians who refused to make their relationship work convinced a judge to abandon the institution of marriage because the federal government had abandoned the institution of marriage.
Good times, eh?