This afternoon, after hearing oral arguments on motions for summary judgment in DeBoer v. Snyder, a Federal challenge to Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage and adoption, Judge Bernard Friedman of the US Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the case requires findings of fact and cannot be decided purely on grounds of law (which is what summary judgment requires). Therefore, he scheduled a trial to take place on Feb. 25th.
Though this decision was disappointing to many proponents of marriage equality ("Yet ANOTHER delay?"), it actually bodes well for the future. A ruling based on the factual record established at a trial is much more likely to withstand an appeal than a summary judgment. Since a summary judgment consists purely of conclusions of law, an appellate court can (and usually will) completely ignore it and substitute their own conclusions, essentially completely doing the case over. Findings of fact, however, are binding on an appellate court and cannot be ignored except in special cases, such as when an unqualified person is improperly granted expert-witness status.
You may remember that a similar thing happened back in 2009, when Judge Vaughn Walker denied summary judgment in Perry v. Schwartzenegger, the Prop 8 case, and insisted on a trial. The findings of fact he came up with were devastating to the anti-marriage cause (and because they're binding, they can be cited in DeBoer and any future marriage cases that go to trial).
Thus the delay in DeBoer will result in a much stronger case, and one that will likely be a candidate for Supreme Court review on the merits (i.e. it could be the next Loving).