Michigan's same sex marriage ban declared unconstitutional

[rb336]

Doesn't matter it's done for a while. Same sex marriages in Michigan is illegal. It will remain law of the land.

No homosexual marriages allowed here!

No homosexual marriages allowed now!

No homosexual marriages allowed forever!

you, sir, are a bigot. Get your damn religion out of other people's business

[Danny]

Not necessarily. People who are gay choose to have kids that are biologically of one of the parents all the time.

Your example of everyone being gay is rather extreme. And even if everyone wanted to be gay, not have kids, and end the human race, it would be their right to do so as free people.

A kid raise by two mommies or two daddies is not an example of real structure family. Homosexuals don't procreate natural children.

[Danny]

you, sir, are a bigot. Get your damn religion out of other people's business

I'm not a bigot, nor a racist, I'm not even Malcolm X of the Black Nation of Islam or some David Duke of the United Klansman of America. I'm just a Christian standing for beliefs and principles of Almighty God, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. What I see the world today is culture shock:


People playing with themselves.

Idol worship

sexual immoralities

killings

crime

lies

abortion

And more sins.

We human beings are living in our poisons, bath in the our poisons and die in our poisons. If this is way we're going to do it so be it. Experience pleasure pain before the real pain starts. It's your choice. But we human beings can make a choice to live clean, straight lives. We can learn from our mistakes and fix them and get back to agreement with our creator. I respect people they are. I don't care if they homosexuals or devil worshipers. People can change for themselves and you can, too.

I still against the lifestyles of homosexuality, but I'm NOT against the person who decided to be a homosexual. I met several gay and lesbian friends for many years, sat with them, eat with them and talk about other things. I did do a little 'church-ing' up with them. Some of them denounce their homosexuality and went back to do with what's right for their lives.


So who are you calling me a bigot? I believe that you're not a bigot or a racist. Please remember this is Detroityes.com social forum. Everyone has right for freedom of speech as long as it offend anyone. Discussing about the judge's ruling of same sex marriage whether should or should not be legal can not turn into name calling. A report of Mr. Boileau may happen and will be monitored if this get out hand. So please no such offensive name calling. Everyone has right to own opinion. The Last time I heard this is free country. But in order to exchange liberty to security or security to liberty, fair to unfair or unfair to fair checks and balance of freedoms must be sacrificed. Please understand the reason of American logic.


We humans evolved so the our understanding of wisdom, religion, dogma and our laws. We will keep on evolving until we become either glowing beams of universal energy or evil beings.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

you, sir, are a bigot. Get your damn religion out of other people's business

Now it seems Danny doesn't agree with that. Based on this definition from Merriam-Webster though, I'd tend to agree with you, rb336.:

Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group [[such as a racial or religious group)

[southofbloor]

I used to think like that when I was younger. Then I came to realize that some christians aren't good role models, came to terms with the fact that the way I was made was as a gay person, and made peace with that fact and with the people around me who disagreed with me. Danny I think that someone is giving you bad advice. I would respectfully recommend that you question it.

[Scottathew]

A kid raise by two mommies or two daddies is not an example of real structure family. Homosexuals don't procreate natural children.

My sister had a kid when she was 17. The child has not seen her father since she was 3 months old. She's been raised by someone who is not biologically her father. Maybe that family structure isn't real enough for you, but my niece was raised by a family that loves her.

Your arguments about "real structure" don't stand the test of proof. You only apply them to people who are gay, while ignoring the Christians who raise their kids in terrible environments.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

None of his points were awesome or compelling, neither are yours. They are misinformed and frankly repugnant.

Bailey, I try hard to make the assumption [[maybe not always with success) that people who disagree with me are not evil or stupid. Sometimes my emotions sway me otherwise, but then my head kicks in and I can see how it is possible to think differently than me. Your post makes a lot of blanket assumptions that are untrue in my case, and I suspect untrue for a lot of people who disagree with you on this topic. At the very least, the suggestion about where I get my news is both largely false, and comes with the implication that people opposing legal action as the route to make gay marriage legal is somehow an example of hateful right-wing group think is crazy. If there is one thing I don't think I can be accused of, for better or worse, it is following anyone's lead. I support gay marriage, making me out of sync with people on one side; I don't support the lawsuit, making me anathema to the other! My political and legal arguments- even if I am always wrong- do not follow anyone else's intellectual blueprint. The arguments I make on this or any other topic are the result of my own thinking.

Please bear in mind my opposition to litigation establishing gay marriage as a right is based in my support of gay marriage. It is too important for gay people and our families to create the right out of legal whole cloth. I am continuing my support to redefine marriage to include same sex unions, but the route I favor is the less controversial one; the one without a rational chance of being rescinded by a judge; the one where the citizenry gets to say "yes, marriage is important, so we want our gay and lesbian friends and family to be able to join in as well." I am opposed to broad interpretations of the words in the Constitution in general, not just on the issue of gay marriage. It is at the heart of why I am a conservative. Criticizing legal rulings on legal merit [[or one's perception thereof) has been praised on the left and the right for ages. Opposing a bad decision does not mean you are opposed to a redress of the issues involved in the case, merely that the issue is not settled by the Constitution.

Lastly, equating banning gay marriage with an issue like Jim Crow is completely absurd. First, those laws have specific clauses in the Constitution of which they were in violation. Second, the level of impact on one's liberty and ability to live your life is not comparable. That I have not been legally able to get married to a man has never put me at substantial risk of being lynched, kept out of school, or forced to ride the back of the bus. Since gay people have been able to achieve very much, and in great numbers, demonstrates that the existential barriers of marriage inequality are not on par with the barriers caused by Jim Crow. It is just not the same situation in any respect.

P.S. Having read and thought about your posts [[not just in this thread) for a long time, I was fairly certain that I knew you in the real world. Information and ideas gleaned from your posts coincided perfectly with someone I have known and liked [[although infrequently seen) for years. Today's post was the first time I think I realized that you probably aren't him. Your tone has become inconsistent with the very liberal but very tolerant "Bailey" I have known. So I guess I'll have to change the picture in my head to a different face. And that face was rather handsome, so you are regrettably being downgraded.

[BillyBBrew]

People playing with themselves.

Idol worship

sexual immoralities

killings

crime

lies

abortion

And more sins.

We will keep on evolving until we become either glowing beams of universal energy

Hmmm, glowing beams? Sounds kinda gay to me :-)

And I think I can understand why Danny keeps ranting all this incoherent babble. Number one on his list of sins is masturbation. If the guy doesn't get laid [[since he's not married) and he doesn't masturbate, how else is he going to get out his frustrations :-)

[Vic01]

World filled with homosexuals. That would end the human race in the flash.

Danny, I guess the human race ended quite a while ago...

[bailey]

Bailey, I try hard to make the assumption [[maybe not always with success) that people who disagree with me are not evil or stupid. Sometimes my emotions sway me otherwise, but then my head kicks in and I can see how it is possible to think differently than me. Your post makes a lot of blanket assumptions that are untrue in my case, and I suspect untrue for a lot of people who disagree with you on this topic.

I do give the benefit of the doubt as well, however, there comes a time when the opposite position has been proven wrong so often that there is literally no justification for adherence to it other than willful ignorance, an agenda, blatant bigotry or some sort of learning disability. No one can stand here today and say "good and decent" folks can reasonably disagree about state sponsored segregation. You apparently are. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, as such I find your position to be pretty inexcusable, especially from a gay person. If this was '39 and Germany, would you just be jumping on the train to Auschwitz with all the other fags because "eh, it's the will of the people, we just need to just do a better job of persuasion.."? If not, why not...majority rule right?

. I support gay marriage, making me out of sync with people on one side; I don't support the lawsuit, making me anathema to the other! My political and legal arguments- even if I am always wrong- do not follow anyone else's intellectual blueprint. The arguments I make on this or any other topic are the result of my own thinking.

And your thinking is wrong. It's not being "uncivil" to say so, it's like saying water is wet. Your views about how the majority gets to vote on minority rights are blatantly wrong as it applies to our system of laws and how those laws are reviewed by our Courts. A court ruling in this realm does not undermine the legitimacy of marriage equality. "majority rule" only goes so far. It could have been a unanimous vote via direct referendum or via legislative act and it still could be unconstitutional. Perhaps a decade ago you could cling to your logic, however, the legitimacy of these bans has been decimated by federal court after federal court, a few state courts and then SCOTUS in Windsor. Heck, Scalia has been predicting this result since his apoplectic temper tantrum in his Lawrence dissent.

It is too important for gay people and our families to create the right out of legal whole cloth. I am continuing my support to redefine marriage to include same sex unions, but the route I favor is the less controversial one; the one without a rational chance of being rescinded by a judge; the one where the citizenry gets to say "yes, marriage is important, so we want our gay and lesbian friends and family to be able to join in as well."

Again.. and really for the last time... this is a view that has no legitimacy. The "right" is not created out of whole cloth. The supreme court is the final arbiter of this. SCOTUS has repeatedly held [[Loving being the most cited) that under our constitution there is a constitutional right to marriage. As court after court is now reaffirming, the exclusion of a population, any population really, [[in this case a population that is larger than the Jewish population in this country) from that right to marry must be supported by at least some rational basis. Court after Court after Court has found THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS.

Lastly, equating banning gay marriage with an issue like Jim Crow is completely absurd. First, those laws have specific clauses in the Constitution of which they were in violation. Second, the level of impact on one's liberty and ability to live your life is not comparable. That I have not been legally able to get married to a man has never put me at substantial risk of being lynched, kept out of school, or forced to ride the back of the bus. Since gay people have been able to achieve very much, and in great numbers, demonstrates that the existential barriers of marriage inequality are not on par with the barriers caused by Jim Crow. It is just not the same situation in any respect.

The denial of the comparison is what is absurd. Stop doing it. Jim Crow laws were the state institutionalization of segregation...it didn't make lynching legal. The fact is, you are less than a full citizen so long as these bans stand. It really is that simple. It is state sponsored discrimination. You are sitting in the back of the bus right now. There are over 1000 benefits of marriage available without cost to straight couples not available to gay couples FOR NO RATIONAL REASON. It has cost me and my partner personally 10s of thousands in additional taxes. To attempt to get some of the protections afforded through marriage we've had to do some complex estate planning. Even then it's undermined by state statutes granting preference to legal next of kin [[which we would be if we could get married). If we were to have children, only one of us could be a legal parent..... the list goes on and on.

P.S. Having read and thought about your posts [[not just in this thread) for a long time, I was fairly certain that I knew you in the real world. Information and ideas gleaned from your posts coincided perfectly with someone I have known and liked [[although infrequently seen) for years.

From your posts on this topic I find you to be kind of pitiful in clinging to your position here...again..since you claim to be gay it makes it all the more so. I am 100% certain we don't know each other. No gay person I know is satisfied being a second class citizen. You are apparently satisfied sitting at the back of the bus, having only partial citizenship and getting whatever scraps from the table happen to come your way. fine. Stay there...the rest of us will do the work for you.

[Vic01]

After reading all 180+ posts, I've yet to see one that refers to this as a "Detroit Issue"... can anyone point to one? The same sex marriage issue is statewide. I think the women in the court case might live in Berkley, Mi. which is Oakland County, not Detroit.
All along we've been talking about MI laws, the MI Supreme Court, The MI Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Sounds like it might belong in the "Non-Detroit" area...

[313WX]

After reading all 180+ posts, I've yet to see one that refers to this as a "Detroit Issue"... can anyone point to one? The same sex marriage issue is statewide. I think the women in the court case might live in Berkley, Mi. which is Oakland County, not Detroit.
All along we've been talking about MI laws, the MI Supreme Court, The MI Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Sounds like it might belong in the "Non-Detroit" area...

Detroit is Michigan, and the issue affects Detroit citizens as well.

[trotwood]

This is my train of thought to. Also the arguments were presented in Detroit and a decision was handed down in Detroit.

Detroit is Michigan, and the issue affects Detroit citizens as well.

[Spartan]

Hmmm, glowing beams? Sounds kinda gay to me :-)

And I think I can understand why Danny keeps ranting all this incoherent babble. Number one on his list of sins is masturbation. If the guy doesn't get laid [[since he's not married) and he doesn't masturbate, how else is he going to get out his frustrations :-)

If you can't flog the dolphin, flog the gays?

[Pickford-Bentler]

I thought that not venting frustrations could have led to total Nuclear War?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM


General Ripper: "I do not avoid women, Mandrake..... but I do deny them my essence."

[Danny]

My sister had a kid when she was 17. The child has not seen her father since she was 3 months old. She's been raised by someone who is not biologically her father. Maybe that family structure isn't real enough for you, but my niece was raised by a family that loves her.

Your arguments about "real structure" don't stand the test of proof. You only apply them to people who are gay, while ignoring the Christians who raise their kids in terrible environments.

Then you have seen the effects of what kids who were raise by either 2 mommies and 2 daddies can do to a child's environment. Either a happy acceptance or unpleasant one. I have see few homosexual families getting beat up, picked on, kick out of any religious institutions and lose their careers. Homosexuals ever lost their friends and even lost their lives, too. Once they have took that path their lives will be changed in a world where marriage is a union between a man and woman majority.

In most foreign nations homosexuals are definitely being prosecuted, some have put to death! Don't even try to go any Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia. Homosexuals will be executed by hanging or by the scimitar while Muslims cheered "ALLAH AKBAR!" They are homosexuals living in most middle eastern nations, but the lives are kept in absolute secrecy.

It's going to be impossible to have a homosexual world. They can't procreate natural children so some 'playing God' genetic work or sexual immoral midwife programs will do. Religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism will have no meaning. Some new cult and a pagan God or Goddess will do. Homosexuality will never go away, nor as religious fanatics will not go away.

[Danny]

Hmmm, glowing beams? Sounds kinda gay to me :-)

And I think I can understand why Danny keeps ranting all this incoherent babble. Number one on his list of sins is masturbation. If the guy doesn't get laid [[since he's not married) and he doesn't masturbate, how else is he going to get out his frustrations :-)

Be careful of saying the 'M' word, BillyBBrew. There's kids who could be members in the forum.

[Scottathew]

Then you have seen the effects of what kids who were raise by either 2 mommies and 2 daddies can do to a child's environment. Either a happy acceptance or unpleasant one. I have see few homosexual families getting beat up, picked on, kick out of any religious institutions and lose their careers. Homosexuals ever lost their friends and even lost their lives, too. Once they have took that path their lives will be changed in a world where marriage is a union between a man and woman majority.

Danny, yes I have seen the effects of kids being raised by two loving same-sex parents. The results have been much better than some straight folks that I know that have been married three times and each time blend and rip apart their families.

In most foreign nations homosexuals are definitely being prosecuted, some have put to death! Don't even try to go any Muslim nations like Saudi Arabia. Homosexuals will be executed by hanging or by the scimitar while Muslims cheered "ALLAH AKBAR!" They are homosexuals living in most middle eastern nations, but the lives are kept in absolute secrecy.

Yes, there are other nations that have less freedom for people, even less than what we have here. I'm glad I'm in America and I'm very glad that we're constantly evolving as a nation as we march toward equal rights for all.

It's going to be impossible to have a homosexual world. They can't procreate natural children so some 'playing God' genetic work or sexual immoral midwife programs will do. Religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism will have no meaning. Some new cult and a pagan God or Goddess will do. Homosexuality will never go away, nor as religious fanatics will not go away.

Yes, it's impossible for a man and a man and a woman and a woman to have children. It's also impossible for some straight couples to have children two because of medical issues. However, both straight and gay couples have found ways around this, so that they can raise children.

Just because Michigan allows gay marriage doesn't mean that the whole world is going to instantly become homosexual, stop procreating, and end civilization as we know it.

Your arguments against homosexuality are not based in logic. I would recommend that you just thank God that you're not gay and can live a life free of the ridicule and judgement that your church says they're against, but yet they are for at the same time. You're not gay, good for you, there's no need to try to make people who are miserable.

[Don K]

I'm willing to grant that the 14th amendment doesn't mention sexual orientation. Nor, however, does it mention race, sex, religion, or any of the other characteristics by which governments may not discriminate. Now, clearly the writers of the amendment had race in mind. Women, after all, were not considered legal persons at the time. If you're Justice Scalia, that's sufficient cause to assert that under the constitution women have no rights other than the right to vote. Prohibitions on holding office, owning property, working, driving, or even leaving the house without a male relative in attendance would be just fine.

Similarly, the only religious rights granted by the constitution are free exercise and holding office. Presumably, under this view, states could restrict the right to vote to Christians, or even just to Protestants. And the disabled have no rights that governments are obligated to respect.

Now, you would say, these results are absurd, and you'd be right. The point is that peoples' [[and courts') views on human rights change over time. In 1866, sexual orientation wasn't even a thing; there were just sodomites violating God's law, so we better punish them just in case God doesn't get around to it. By now, the U.S. is coming to a consensus that sexual orientation is a characteristic worthy of inclusion under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, and judges are reflecting this change in their rulings, which I think is a good thing. I think it's significant that Judge Friedman rejected the MMA even using rational basis analysis, which is the easiest hurdle for government actions to clear.

Do I wish we didn't have to go to court to enforce our rights? Sure. That would be nice. But the fact is that as long as the Michigan Republican Party is controlled by religious fanatics, nothing good will come out of the Michigan Legislature, and the alternative is an expensive petition drive along with the associated millions in advertising to offset the millions sure to be spent by the Catholic, Mormon, and Dutch Reformed churches.

I do believe that, in the case of marriage, there should be a petition drive to replace the language of Art I, Sec 25 with a real Michigan Marriage Amendment guaranteeing marriage equality, no matter what the outcome is at the Supreme Court.

[rb336]

Be careful of saying the 'M' word, BillyBBrew. There's kids who could be members in the forum.

Be careful spewing your ignorant, hateful, bigoted bile, Danny, there may be kids reading this forum

[Thruster315]

Danny, let's not forget where these homosexual kids come from. They're generally born from heterosexual parents who had every intent on raising their kids well. Where did these parents "go wrong" then?

Gay people are going to be around as long as heterosexual people keep making them.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Oh no, the "M" word. Let's include a disclaimer about possible blindness. [[I've had a terrible time typing this. For some reason I can hardly see the screen....)

[BillyBBrew]

Be careful of saying the 'M' word, BillyBBrew. There's kids who could be members in the forum.

You're right Danny, I'm sorry. I forgot that I've never seen fuck, dick, asshole, nigger, shit, fag and many other nice clean words on this forum.....Next time I'll say jacking off, slapping the salami or some other such euphemism.

[rb336]

In the words of TJ:

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. ”