The trial hinged largely on expert testimony from scholars that put forth a litany of evidence, but it seems their testimony did little to affect Friedman’s ruling.

The state argued that the ban was in place to promote the optimal child-rearing environment, which they claimed was two heterosexual, married parents.

Friedman instead sided with the Plaintiff’s expert, Stanford sociologist Mark Rosenfeld, who asserted through his research that children raised in same-sex household do just as well as children raised in heterosexual households.

Some of the state’s witnesses had authored highly-criticized research contradicting Rosenfeld’s study, but it appears their findings didn’t hold water for Friedman, who said the testimony of multiple witnesses was either “unbelievable” or did not carry “any significant weight.”

He referred to their research as “outlier studies,” and said his opinion that the state’s argument was logically flawed.

“Taking the state defendants’ position to its logical conclusion, the empirical evidence at hand should require that only rich, educated, suburban-dwelling, married Asians may marry, to the exclusion of all other heterosexual couples,” Friedman said. “The absurdity of such a requirement is self-evident.”

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette intends to appeal the ruling and asked to issue a stay to prevent the ruling from taking effect.