8. Plaintiffs admit that a number of previously unmarried Michigan same-sex couples were granted marriage licenses on March 22, 2014. 9. Plaintiffs admit that the effect of the
case was the removal of any state constitutional impediment to recognition of their valid, federally-recognized out-of-state marriage license. Plaintiffs deny that this is the sole basis for recognition of their marriage. 10. Admitted. 11.
Denied. Recognition of Plaintiffs’ marriage license is not
dependent on any outcome in the
litigation, and the ultimate resolution of
does not control the disposition of this case. Even if the State of Michigan prevails in
litigation will not resolve this case nor will it resolve the effect of the recognition window, the constitutionality of any remaining refusal to recognize out-of-state marriages entered into in neighboring jurisdictions under the Equal Protection Clause or the right to remain married under the Due Process Clause. 12. Plaintiffs admit that there are recognition cases in other jurisdictions pending before the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs deny that these cases will be dispositive and doubts that they will offer much instruction beyond that which is offered by prevailing precedent in sister
circuits that favor Plaintiffs’ claims.
13. Denied. There is no likelihood of confusion or potential for harm simply by allowing this case to proceed. To the contrary, holding this case in abeyance raises serious questions abo
ut likely harm not only to Plaintiffs’ rights but also the rights of third
parties, and sets a dangerous precedent for constitutional litigation.
2:14-cv-12221-AJT-MJH Doc # 19 Filed 08/14/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 264