Jarred, what I have seen of ‘pro-family’ groups is that they talk very narrowly about what constitutes a family. They talk in generalities about what is good for children, then dismiss specifics that challenge those assumptions. I wouldn’t expect those tactics to change in the courtroom. In fact, I would expect them to ignore the matter of children all together to avoid highlighting the fact that they are trying to harm those specific kids. After all, at that point, it would be about the right of the Plaintiffs to marry rather than their rights to adopt. If the Plaintiffs aren’t careful, they could get sucked up into defending their way of life rather than keeping the focus on how the kids are being harmed. It would only serve the LGBT community for the defense to examine the matter of children, because no matter how you slice it, those kids are better off adopted and their lives would be further improved by the stability of marriage.

Many others have no explicit prohibition and some courts may have granted adoptions on a case by case basis.

It’s really absurd to tie joint adoption to marriage when single people can adopt. Banning single people from adopting makes some sense actually. But marriage isn’t the only way for a stable couple to live.

The plaintiffs are not asking for marriage rights in the abstract. If amended, they will be asking for marriage rights for one specific purpose.

Because this is an adoption lawsuit amended to include a challenge to the marriage ban, the question becomes not whether the marriage ban is good for children, but whether it is good for these children.

The attorney general’s office will need to argue that the state has an interest in denying these three children the right to parental protection. And the appeal to the theoretical value to unidentified and abstract children – which is their standard fare – may look laughable in comparison.

We are no longer left with the attempt to introduce our own theoretical children. They are front and center.

I think it would be hard to shift the focus away from the children. After all, haven’t opposing marriage equality been trumpeting that marriage is all about the children? I think it would certainly look pretty suspicious for them to try ignore the very real children affected by this case to talk about “marriage in the abstract,” as it would be a strong indication that no, they really don’t believe their own rhetoric. (At least not when that rhetoric suddenly inconveniences them.)

Federal Judge Friedman’s decision to give this couple the proper legal advice (which should have come from their own lawyer before the lawyer filed this case on their behalf) leaves him at least technically vulnerable to rebuke from the SCOTUS. Note, the attitude of Michigan politicians and interest groups does not affect a federal (lifetime appointment) judge; only a SCOTUS rebuke can do so, and if he gives no advice he can’t be rebuked for not giving it.

I can’t emphasize this strongly enough: This couple’s only chance of prevailing on the adoption issue is by helping to overturn DOMA. This is exactly what Friedman has told them (in different words) and exactly what he has given them the chance to do, by allowing them to amend their original complaint, which he did not have to do. This whole case to this point is a win for marriage equality, and nothing for us to be nervous about.

Of course, that is the cynical me talking. The last action could happen anyway, and I doubt somebody would have really thought this through and said, “I can’t deny them this, but I could more easily deny them that.” What’s more, if he did rule against them after they amended, the public outcry might be far worse, and would only serve to highlight the families LGBT people have already made, and which are already thriving in spite of the restrictive rules they face. As David suggested, it would have been easier for him to deny them outright (if that were his intent) and keep this out of the limelight altogether.

Michael C, this story is indeed going somewhere if they amend their suit because, however the trial judge rules on a suit amended to address marriage equality, the verdict will be appealed. Moreover, if this judge “ruled on party lines” exclusively, he would never have allowed them time to amend, since he didn’t have to do so, and couldn’t even have been criticized for simply dismissing (or ruling against) their original complaint.

http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1079