MIAMI GARDENS, FL – OCTOBER 03: General view of the stadium as the Oklahoma Sooners take on the Miami Hurricanes at Land Shark Stadium on October 3, 2009 in Miami Gardens, Florida. Miami defeated Oklahoma 21-20. (Photo by Doug Benc/Getty Images)Michael Irvin Jr., son of the great NFL wide receiver Michael Irvin, was looking forward to perhaps a breakout season during his junior campaign at Miami. It looks like it’s going to have to wait, however.Wednesday, Miami announced that Irvin will be out four months because he needs surgery on his MCL. Irvin’s injury leaves the team a bit shorthanded at the tight end position heading into the 2018 season.Irvin played a bit on special teams during his freshman season and registered nine receptions for 78 yards during his sophomore campaign. He was expected to be featured more this season.Irvin was a three-star recruit out of high school. He had offers from 13 different schools, but ultimately chose to play where his father played.Miami announces that junior tight end Michael Irvin II has sustained an MCL injury in his right knee and is expected to be sidelined for four months. Surgery expected this week.— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) August 8, 2018Michael Irvin Jr. out 4 months after knee surgery for UM, leaving Canes with just 3 scholarship tight ends – Freshmen Jordan and Mallory, plus Polendey. Depth big concern, even with high regard for 2 freshmen.— Barry Jackson (@flasportsbuzz) August 8, 2018Surgery is expected to take place this week.Miami is one of the favorites in the ACC – behind Clemson. The Hurricanes finished last season with a 10-3 record and an Orange Bowl loss to Wisconsin.This year, Miami opens up with a tough game against SEC foe LSU. The game will take place on Sunday, September 2.
In November, they challenged High Court judge Mrs Justice Andrews’s decision to dismiss their judicial review action.But on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal dismissed their challenge.Karon Monaghan QC told Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Beatson and Lord Justice Briggs that the issue was whether the bar on opposite-sex couples entering into civil partnerships was incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention, which relates to discrimination, taken with Article 8, which refers to respect for private and family life.She said: “They wish very much – and it is of very considerable importance to them – to enter into a legally regulated relationship which does not carry with it patriarchal baggage, which many consider comes with the institution of marriage.” The academics, who live in Hammersmith, west London, and have a 20-month-old daughter, say that the Government’s position is “incompatible with equality law” . Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan with campaigners outside the Court of Appeal on TuesdayCredit:STEFAN WERMUTH/Reuters Dan Squires QC for the Secretary of State for Education, who has responsibility for equalities within Government, said that a decision was taken, after two public consultations and debate in Parliament, not at this stage to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, abolish them or phase them out.It was decided to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples impacted on civil partnerships before making a final decision which – if reversed in a few years’ time – would be disruptive, unnecessary and extremely expensive.He described the judge’s decision as “unimpeachable”.The judges agreed the couple had established a potential violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken with Article 8 but Lady Justice Arden dissented on the question of whether the policy of “wait and evaluate” was justified at present. A heterosexual couple who object to the “patriarchal baggage” of marriage have lost their latest battle for the right to enter into a civil partnership.Rebecca Steinfeld, 35, and Charles Keidan, 40, want to secure legal recognition of their seven-year relationship through that route – but are prevented because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 says that only same-sex couples are eligible. It is of very considerable importance to them – to enter into a legally regulated relationship which does not carry with it patriarchal baggageKaron Monaghan QC Academics Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan wanted to secure legal recognition of their six-year relationship without marryingCredit:STEFAN WERMUTH Ms Steinfeld said: “We are pleased that today’s ruling has shown that the Government must act very soon to end this unfair situation.”All three judges agreed that we’re being treated differently because of our sexual orientation, and that this impacts our private and family life.”All three rejected the argument that we could ‘just get married’. All three emphasised that the Government cannot maintain the status quo for much longer – they are on borrowed time.”Ms Steinfeld said Lady Justice Arden accepted their case on almost every point.”We lost on a technicality, that the Government should be allowed a little more time to make a decision. So there’s everything to fight for, and much in the ruling that gives us reason to be positive and keep going.”Mr Keidan said: “The Court of Appeal has made it clear the status quo cannot continue. The Government should now recognise the benefits of opening civil partnerships to mixed-sex couples.”The measure is fair, popular, good for families and children, and long overdue. They have everything to gain.” Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings.