ms. stanyar. ms. stanyar: may it please the court, carol stanyar.0 years the supreme court has recognized that the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life are liberties protected by due process. april deboer and jane rouse have a constitutional right to share a life, to marry, to form a family, to raise their children. we show in this case that no matter what standard of scrutiny the court uses, no matter what doctrine the court applies, the state can't prevail here. the michigan marriage amendment is unconstitutional. a starting disagreement between the parties as the court has already observed is the articulation of the right itself. is it the right to marry or is the right to what the state is calling same-sex marriage? judge sutton: what about -- i mean, i realize before windsor the first and second circuits said baker is binding. post-windsor, there is no majorities recognizing that, but i have to say, i really find that a very serious issue. the thing that is going on is you oddly enough treat the summary reverals or

ms. stanyar: that was one urban area. i can tell you in my state nothing is happening to help gay people. in terms of the science that you talked about that, the science this is a consensus born of 30 years of research on same-sex parenting, 50 years of research of child development. we learned from the state's own expert that the government and universities have stopped funding in this area on this topic because of the social science consensus. the wait-and-see approach is not itself a rational basis. it's not even a reason at all. there is another problem with that no other group in society has to pass apparent competency test for they are allowed to marry. parents who have low incomes pirates -- parents with lower educational levels. there is no competency test that we do not bar them from marrying nor do we are them from having children. the argument has been raised that the decision would intrude upon religious freedom but marriage is a civil institution. judgment for the plaintiff's will not require any change for r