The dominos continue to fall. Following 17 other states and the District of Columbia, Michigan will now allow same-sex marriages. The ruling came down on Friday, March 21; however the Republican-controlled state government has begun procedures to block the court ruling.

It all began with a lawsuit in 2012 against Michigan's ban on same-sex adoptions, which is tied to its marriage laws. The couple, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, wanted to jointly adopt the three children they have raised together but only straight couples are allowed to jointly adopt according to the 2004 constitutional amendment, according to the AP.

However, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down the amendment and did not suspend his decision. This means that come Monday morning, same-sex couples will be able to file for marriage licenses.

"Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage," Friedman said to the AP. "Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law."

Though he mentioned many were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs, one man is not. According to USA Today, the Episcopal Bishop Rev. Wendell Gibbs said he supported allowing same-sex couples to marry in the state. The head of the Episcopal Church in southeastern Michigan made his support known a couple days before the ruling.

"I stand in support of marriage equality and pray that our justice system will work to break down the walls of segregation, promote the humanity of all and calm our irrational fears," said Gibbs on Tuesday.

Other religious groups do not approve of marriage equality, including the Catholic diocese of Michigan. The state attorney general, Bill Schuette, has asked the federal appeals court to freeze the ruling until he can prepare an appeal, according to the AP. Yet, the case, which focused on how children will be affected by having same-sex parents, will add the precedent set by previous cases.

"State defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people," the judge added. "No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples."