Michigan's same sex marriage ban declared unconstitutional

[Zacha341]

As do I 48307. It's been interesting to read varied views shared and I appreciate your detailed comments and observations.

I'm sure many others will continue to weigh in on this topic here on this site, onward. Have a grand day!

Zacha,

I appreciate the civil discussion on such a passionate subject.

[Zacha341]

Temporary suspension issued for same-sex marriages

DETROIT - Many new developments have arisen since Judge Friedman issued his ruling late Friday afternoon lifting Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage.

On Saturday morning, clerks in four Michigan counties opened up to issue marriage licenses and perform marriages. Just before 5 p.m. the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay, temporarily suspending same sex marriages until at least Wednesday. The court will hear arguments on whether or not the stay should remain in place.

Full article link: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/t...iages/25111342

[Scottathew]

In the short-term the stay will work, but I feel the ruling will prevail in the end. They're only delaying the inevitable.

[Gistok]

While I don't tolerate much when it comes to this topic, I'd suggest you're putting too much emotion behind my posts. My condescension is limited to the occasional eye roll.

And I can fully understand your first point... but dayyum... you do pack one helluva eye roll!

[Danny]

Temporary suspension issued for same-sex marriages

DETROIT - Many new developments have arisen since Judge Friedman issued his ruling late Friday afternoon lifting Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage.

On Saturday morning, clerks in four Michigan counties opened up to issue marriage licenses and perform marriages. Just before 5 p.m. the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay, temporarily suspending same sex marriages until at least Wednesday. The court will hear arguments on whether or not the stay should remain in place.

Full article link: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/t...iages/25111342

Way to go, Bill Schulte. That will hold on the homosexual marriages.

[Danny]

I sense you call these other religions as "cults" and with a patronizing smug tone. Let's not forget that the majority of all religions started as cults.

Not Christianity, its started from Jesus to develop a nation.

[Danny]

Anyone who become homosexual sacrifices will be made:


1. You're rejecting God's laws and commandments.

2. You're disagree with God's laws.

3. You will LOSE some people that you love.

4. You're rejecting the church or any religious institutions.

5. You will not read the bible, Torah or Qu'ran anymore.

6. You more likely being rejected in some places.

7. You will believe in God, but it doesn't dwell in your homosexual decision.

8. You might get killed! [[ Look what happen to Matthew Sheppard!)

Anyone who wants to be gay or Lesbian. Keep your relationship a total secret. Our 95% religious world will stay within the morality of defining marriage, a union between a man and a woman.

[Scottathew]

I'm not sure if he's trolling or if he really believes this. I'm not saying this to be hurtful or try to support my point, I'm really not sure...

[jcole]

I'm not sure if he's trolling or if he really believes this. I'm not saying this to be hurtful or try to support my point, I'm really not sure...

He believes it. Do a quick search on his posts.

[Honky Tonk]

No one is, Keep Calm and Keep Posting.....

[Scottathew]

Anyone who become homosexual sacrifices will be made:


1. You're rejecting God's laws and commandments.

2. You're disagree with God's laws.

3. You will LOSE some people that you love.

4. You're rejecting the church or any religious institutions.

5. You will not read the bible, Torah or Qu'ran anymore.

6. You more likely being rejected in some places.

7. You will believe in God, but it doesn't dwell in your homosexual decision.

8. You might get killed! [[ Look what happen to Matthew Sheppard!)

Anyone who wants to be gay or Lesbian. Keep your relationship a total secret. Our 95% religious world will stay within the morality of defining marriage, a union between a man and a woman.

1. Religion doesn't matter when it comes to government
2. Religion doesn't matter when it comes to government
3. The law should not be concerned about whether you upset your loved ones or try to prevent you from upsetting them
4. Religion doesn't matter when it comes to government
5. You will still be able to read in whatever languages that you're literate in. Being gay doesn't make you selectively illiterate
6. The law doesn't need to be concerned with whether or not our personal choices will be accepted by others
7. I'm not quite sure what you mean in that point
8. Murdering someone is illegal and immoral and cannot be justified by the person being gay

Some people will have negative reactions to finding out a loved one or a friend is gay. However, the law doesn't not need to concern itself with hurt feelings. Also, if a person truly loves you, they will accept you. They might be repulsed by the gayness of some of your personal choices, but they will still love you.

Danny, you've got to take out all religious reasons when making a debate about law. I don't what the government involved in my church, and I don't want the church involved in government.

Our government represents and serves many different people, including Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, atheists, straight people, gay people, asexual people, etc...

[Vic01]

Temporary suspension issued for same-sex marriages

DETROIT - Many new developments have arisen since Judge Friedman issued his ruling late Friday afternoon lifting Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage.

On Saturday morning, clerks in four Michigan counties opened up to issue marriage licenses and perform marriages. Just before 5 p.m. the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay, temporarily suspending same sex marriages until at least Wednesday. The court will hear arguments on whether or not the stay should remain in place.

Full article link: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/t...iages/25111342

this look remarkably similar to what I posted Saturday night in post #60

Judge issues temporary stay on same-sex marriage ruling until Wednesday, March 26

Originally Posted by SDCC
http://www.wxyz.com/news/judge-issue...esday-march-26



here's the story -

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has issued a temporary stay on the Michigan same-sex marriage ruling until Wednesday, March 26.According to the court document, to allow a more reasoned consideration of the motion to stay, it is ordered that the ruling is temporarily staying until Wednesday.
The attorney for April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, has to file a response to the appeal and emergency stay, filed by Attorney General Bill Schuette Friday. The response must be filed in court by 12 p.m. on Tuesday, March 25.
Hundreds of same-sex couples lined up at different county courthouses in Oakland, Ingham, and Washtenaw counties to get their marriage licenses before the stay was issued.
In Oakland County, the clerk issued 142 marriage licenses, and in Ingham county, there were 57 licenses issued.
U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman ruled Friday evening that Michigan's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, striking down the law embraced by voters in 2004".

[Zacha341]

^^^ Cool! Thanks for letting me know.

[Bong-Man]

Danny.....Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep sit down and discuss what's for dinner.....that's why America isn't one.

[rb336]

Not Christianity, its started from Jesus to develop a nation.

really?

a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous - Merriam Webster

That is ​exactly Christianity in its early days

[Danny]

Danny.....Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep sit down and discuss what's for dinner.....that's why America isn't one.

When the people of Michigan vote against same sex marriage that was real democracy and fair. When some judge decides to take away my vote and the people of Michigan's voting rights about banning same sex marriages. That is not democracy. By the way when two wolves and the sheep talk about what's for dinner, who will be dinner? One who is getting fleeced.

[Danny]

Danny, you've got to take out all religious reasons when making a debate about law. I don't what the government involved in my church, and I don't want the church involved in government.

When same sex marriage becomes law of the land in U.S. All churches will NOT accept those practices. Even though the law is spoken. All churches will fight this matter. Homosexual marriages is a worldly problem. Let the world deal with it and let government perform same sex marriages.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

I have stayed mum on this subject for several days because: a) I said what I thought about the original decision at the beginning; and b) I was pretty sure that my opinion would feel to many people like I was throwing gasoline on the fire of this topic, which it is not intended to be.

The several different turns that this story has taken in several days, with appeals and motions and intense public reaction to all of them, are great reasons- in addition to the legal ones- not to decide an issue like this in court. Imagine, if you will, what happens to the couples that got married on Saturday if the original decision allowing them to get married is not upheld?

I strongly believe in gay marriage, and have, I think, for many years before most people [[including most of my fellow gay people) were in favor of it. Thankfully, a majority has come to see that legalizing gay marriage is both fair and demonstrably beneficial to gay people. That majority will vote to make it legal if it is put on the ballot. Over the next few years, the near-majority in the legislature favoring legalization will be the majority. Those are appropriate paths to gay marriage. Ends do not justify means. The excellent, moral, fair, modern [[yet traditional) step of declaring the benefits and status of legal matrimony, and the extension of those attributes to more couples should be done by the citizens. It would also have the benefit of being final. Court cases are controversial. I dare say that with every more people supporting gay marriage, and young people being overwhelmingly for it, a ballot initiative passing that allowed gay marriage would be the final chapter of the long battle for marriage equality in Michigan. All the rest is noise that will only draw out the process.

[rb336]

When the people of Michigan vote against same sex marriage that was real democracy and fair. When some judge decides to take away my vote and the people of Michigan's voting rights about banning same sex marriages. That is not democracy. By the way when two wolves and the sheep talk about what's for dinner, who will be dinner? One who is getting fleeced.

So which right of YOURS would you be OK with the majority voting away?

[248lurker]

I dare say that with every more people supporting gay marriage, and young people being overwhelmingly for it, a ballot initiative passing that allowed gay marriage would be the final chapter of the long battle for marriage equality in Michigan. All the rest is noise that will only draw out the process.

I agree with you, Mikey. If the pro-same sex marriage advocates feel public sentiment is now in their favor, why not revisit the issue at the polls to see if the majority truly feels that way. I would have rather have seen this step taken first before resorting to a lawsuit.

[Vic01]

I agree with you, Mikey. If the pro-same sex marriage advocates feel public sentiment is now in their favor, why not revisit the issue at the polls to see if the majority truly feels that way. I would have rather have seen this step taken first before resorting to a lawsuit.

So, this question would be - Can the issue be brought up again as a ballot initiative at the same time as the legal challenges/appeals drag out through all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court [[as AG Schuette has threatened to do)? Come at it from both angles. If the court case to OK same sex marriage fails, then the ballot would let the people settle the issue [[likely in favor, but maybe not) again.
If this isn't practical, maybe "revisit the issue at the polls" afterward to show people that a lot has changed since 2004. Politicians pass "non-binding resolutions" all the time to make a statement on the record, maybe we could do that? I've got $$$ that says that "the people" would say it's OK in 2014.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

So, this question would be - Can the issue be brought up again as a ballot initiative at the same time as the legal challenges/appeals drag out through all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court [[as AG Schuette has threatened to do)? Come at it from both angles. If the court case to OK same sex marriage fails, then the ballot would let the people settle the issue [[likely in favor, but maybe not) again.
If this isn't practical, maybe "revisit the issue at the polls" afterward to show people that a lot has changed since 2004. Politicians pass "non-binding resolutions" all the time to make a statement on the record, maybe we could do that? I've got $$$ that says that "the people" would say it's OK in 2014.

I think I am being entirely realistic in saying that a ballot initiative to legalize gay marriage would pass easily now in Michigan. To be sure, advocates would have to work hard on the issue and not take it for granted. In addition to demagraphic shifts [[i.e., the opponents are dying off), every group of voters is changing it's mind on the issue. Even African-Americans, historically the most anti-gay voters, are coming around on the issue. We can and should get the question back on the ballot. This is a culture shifting issue, which has two meanings: it takes time to get most people on board [[and we're there now in Michigan); and it takes people time [[some more than others) to accept the change. That's normal, human, understandable, forgivable, and occurring with increasing rapidity. In 10 years, ballot initiatives will even pass in Southern states.

Of course, the legal wrangling will continue until either the US Supreme Court rules that the existing Constitution has changed meanings [[last year's legal wins were narrow, specific decisions, not the answer to the broad question of whether gay marriage prohibition violates a specific clause of the Constitution) or Michigan voters directly at the ballot box or indirectly through the legislature legalize marriage. I appreciate the tactical advantage of continually filing lawsuits: if you win once, thereafter you need only play a decent defense to win the issue. But my understanding of our government is that policy is made by the voters or legislators. Prohibiting gay marriage is bad policy. Judges are there to implement extant laws, not to make policy. If the laws can be proven to violate the Constitution, the court could rightly strike down the law. But it is not clear that Michigan's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional [[I would argue that it is not, for reasons I have put in other posts on this topic). The court shouldn't strike it down just because the judges find it to be bad or foolhardy policy.

If the ban on gay marriage is struck down and that is sustained by higher courts, it should be remembered that gay marriage was not legal in Michigan prior to the specific ban. I would assume it resumes that status; County Clerks choosing to license gay marriages would be taking it on faith the subsequent legal challenges would go the same way.

To people who are advocates of keeping the marriage ban, I would remind them that legal gay marriage does not require you to have a gay marriage. Opposite sex relationships would still be allowed, even encouraged. I do think retaining religious exemptions for private citizens is important. My desire to marry a man should not compel someone who thinks it is a sin to have to cater my wedding. Animal sacrifice is legal in some instances in conjunction with religious ceremony. If someone wanted to slaughter a live lamb in my restaurant I would like to think that my moral objection to it would allow me to graciously turn away that business. Similarly, I think a gay florist should be allowed to deny doing the flowers for a heterosexual wedding if they so chose. Such exemptions would be rare [[it's bad for business!), but should be tolerated. Live and let live is not a one-way street, nor should it be.

[Zacha341]

Awesome and compelling points MIB, speaking to the many levels of this complex and sensitive issue. I appreciate what you've detailed. As I said pages ago, there are caring and good people on both sides, and there will be winners and losers whatever the courts and the political lobbies determine. IMO, believing otherwise sets forth a construct where freedom of opinion [[and participation) can and will be compromised.

Problems with the 'exemption' option for businesses having religious, moral objections or reservations have occurred! There may be more cases onward. I list below a few links [[only pulling one from a conservative site) were on the grounds of discrimination private businesses have been challenged when attempting to exempt themselves from participation in same-sex weddings. Going forward more business could be impacted, including pressure from the gay lobbies [[beyond what dissenting gays may desire) who believe litigation to be reasonable [[on the bases of the discrimination).

Those on the other side will stand on the 'exemption' factor you mention. I do not claim to have fast and quick answers, but I'm concerned that freedom for one group will impact others, unavoidably so.

The response of the state will speak volumes:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-order...ry?id=21136505

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr...rlene-20130410

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ce-Gay-Wedding

I do think retaining religious exemptions for private citizens is important. My desire to marry a man should not compel someone who thinks it is a sin to have to cater my wedding. Animal sacrifice is legal in some instances in conjunction with religious ceremony. If someone wanted to slaughter a live lamb in my restaurant I would like to think that my moral objection to it would allow me to graciously turn away that business. Similarly, I think a gay florist should be allowed to deny doing the flowers for a heterosexual wedding if they so chose. Such exemptions would be rare [[it's bad for business!), but should be tolerated. Live and let live is not a one-way street, nor should it be.

[surenowinlife]

Just give my partner and I the same rights as "married couples" but simply call it a Union. Simple isn't it? This solves both issues,its not called a "marriage" and we have control over our lives and deaths. 10 years of shared banking and mortage, car payments and health insurance and don't forget our taxes.
Simply call it union not a marriage and this came from our 6 yr old grandaughter a year ago!

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Just give my partner and I the same rights as "married couples" but simply call it a Union. Simple isn't it? This solves both issues,its not called a "marriage" and we have control over our lives and deaths. 10 years of shared banking and mortage, car payments and health insurance and don't forget our taxes.
Simply call it union not a marriage and this came from our 6 yr old grandaughter a year ago!

Because separate but equal was always such a successful approach to pesky minorities asking for rights?

As a practical matter, how do you make the over 1,000 rights that automatically convey with "marriage" apply to a "civil union?" How do you get another state or country to equate a "marriage" with your "civil union?" The answer is, you cannot make them equal. That's why is a solution that a 6 year old thinks should work. And you might want to ask her why she thinks you are not worthy of marriage.

How would you answer every form, application, etc. that asks about your marital status?