Michigan's same sex marriage ban declared unconstitutional

**Danny** · March-21-14, 04:22 PM

Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's same sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. Now same sex marriage can be performed.

Thanks a heap to the Lesbian couple from Hazel Park that wants to adopt each other's kids. We the people of Michigan voted to make same sex marriage illegal. I can't wait for religious fanatics to go Lansing and propose new laws to keep homosexuals from taking marriage vows.

**Gistok** · March-21-14, 04:29 PM

Before you start letting your emotions run Danny... some facts need to be stated when starting a new thread....

Judge Bernard Freedman today ruled that the State Supreme Court Ruling was not legal.

**Danny** · March-22-14, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Gistok

Before you start letting your emotions run Danny... some facts need to be stated when starting a new thread....

Judge Bernard Freedman today ruled that the State Supreme Court Ruling was not legal.

But city and county government can issue licenses for same sex couples. Washtenaw County is one example.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · March-21-14, 04:46 PM

Happy for the outcome, but not the process. As I've said before here and elsewhere, gay marriage prohibition is not actually unconstitutional. It is unfair, unkind and bad policy. The legal cases for gay marriage emphasize those things rather than the Constitution. It is a sad day when judges are the legislators of last resort. I still hope that the legalization of gay marriage is put on the ballot here in Michigan [[which I predict would pass with 60% of the vote), so that there can be a legal underpinning for gay marriage beyond a benevolently-intended judge's legal fiction. And let's not forget, when a judge grants you your rights, another judge can just as easily take them away. Suppose this decision is over-turned, which would occur if the appeals court is consistent with the previous decades of rulings on the matter, what happens then? Are gay marriages voided? Our actual rights are specific; things that are not defined in the US Constitution are the domain of state and local law. We should focus on correcting bad law [[like anti-gay marriage laws) through legislating or referendum, not trying to see words that are not actually in the Constitution. It's funny to me [[in a pathetic way, not a ha-ha way) that some people can find the subtext of the Constitution without finding the text.

**rb336** · March-21-14, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Happy for the outcome, but not the process. As I've said before here and elsewhere, gay marriage prohibition is not actually unconstitutional.

Ever heard of "equal protection"?

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · March-21-14, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Happy for the outcome, but not the process. As I've said before here and elsewhere, gay marriage prohibition is not actually unconstitutional. It is unfair, unkind and bad policy. The legal cases for gay marriage emphasize those things rather than the Constitution. It is a sad day when judges are the legislators of last resort. I still hope that the legalization of gay marriage is put on the ballot here in Michigan [[which I predict would pass with 60% of the vote), so that there can be a legal underpinning for gay marriage beyond a benevolently-intended judge's legal fiction. And let's not forget, when a judge grants you your rights, another judge can just as easily take them away. Suppose this decision is over-turned, which would occur if the appeals court is consistent with the previous decades of rulings on the matter, what happens then? Are gay marriages voided? Our actual rights are specific; things that are not defined in the US Constitution are the domain of state and local law. We should focus on correcting bad law [[like anti-gay marriage laws) through legislating or referendum, not trying to see words that are not actually in the Constitution. It's funny to me [[in a pathetic way, not a ha-ha way) that some people can find the subtext of the Constitution without finding the text.

I guess its not unconstitutional unless you believe the constitution provides equal rights....

And I'd say when the VOTERS grant your rights, other voters can just as easily take them away. That's why we needed to courts to invalidate the Jim Crow laws as well. I doubt the voters in Alabama ever would have.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · March-21-14, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

I guess its not unconstitutional unless you believe the constitution provides equal rights....

And I'd say when the VOTERS grant your rights, other voters can just as easily take them away. That's why we needed to courts to invalidate the Jim Crow laws as well. I doubt the voters in Alabama ever would have.

The Constitution provides for rights in 2 ways:
1) Limiting and delineating the powers of government.
2) Guaranteeing specific rights through amendment.
Neither of those are applicable here. Denial of the ability to marry someone of the same sex is not discrimination in the legal sense because it allows all people to equally marry someone of the opposite sex [[I am not advocating that definition of marriage), and prohibits all people equally from marrying someone of the same sex.

As I have noted before, laws prohibiting gay marriage are in no way comparable to Jim Crow laws, either morally or legally. To suggest that they are comparable is like saying a fender bender is the Challenger explosion. It lacks a realistic perspective, and trivializes the actual damage done by the greater situation. First, Jim Crow laws requiring segregation in public places and prohibiting black people from voting or serving on juries violate specific clauses in the Constitution. All legal arguments for them, from Reconstruction onwards, were in willful violation of the Constitution; the politics involved superceded the law involved for the judges then. Second, not being able to get married is not the life-crippling shackle on gay people that Jim Crow laws were. Black people found it near impossible to have personal liberties, safety or prosperity generation upon generation. Gay people, thankfully, have been fully able to vote, own property, start businesses, and mostly go about our lives for ages. The violations of rights experienced by blacks in the Jim Crow era were violations of codified rights in the Constitution, making them subject to legal remedy. The rights violation regarding marriage equality is one of fairness we [[rightfully) perceive, but not one of law. The solution for legal unfairness is to change the law. That remains undone here.

Court action for gay marriage can feel great from the perspective of wanting gay people to be able to get married. But it is not the same as enacting a change in the law. That should still be done, and I hope we do. That will be the real, if less celebrated, victory. And the permanent one. Gay people need fewer judges taking mercy on us and more legislators and voters expanding the definition of marriage.

**dbc** · March-21-14, 07:01 PM

Mikey:

Gay marriage prohibitions violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution.

Also, courts have deemed that an attachment to tradition, alone, is insufficient justification for violating due process and equal protection as it relates to gay marriage. Thus, courts have shot down states' arguments that the public's reluctance to a change from "traditional" marriage justifies prohibiting two homosexuals from marrying.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · March-21-14, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by dbc

Mikey:
Gay marriage prohibitions violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution.

How is it a violation of due process? I can't understand that thinking at all. Gay people are fully entitled to the same protections and rights in legal proceedings as are straight people. If Michigan said that gay people can't get a lawyer when charged with a crime, that would be a violation of due process. Or if we couldn't serve on juries. But in the administration of justice gay people have the same extant protections that straight people do. And the same access to voting and legislating, too.

Equal protection does not come into play because, as I noted in the earlier post, all people have an equal right to get married; i.e., all people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That specific law does not discriminate. I favor extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, but that doesn't mean the Constitution is violated if it's not. People are confusing good and fair with the Constitution, which is appropriately void of moral judgments. The moral judgments, such as expanding the definition of marriage, is for the people, not the court.

**dbc** · March-21-14, 07:47 PM

The Supreme Court has determined marriage is a fundamental right protected by the guarantee of liberty under the due process clause. Prohibiting marriage based solely on sexual identity intrudes on homosexuals' liberty. Saying someone has the right to marry any person he/she wants as long as the person is of the opposite sex is no liberty at all. Instead it is unreasonable government interference, for which the state can provide no legally compelling interest to justify its interference.

Similarly, with equal protection, saying you can marry someone as long as he/she is of the opposite sex is absolutely discriminatory. Prohibiting marriage based on sexual identity adversely affects only those of a specific class, i.e., homosexuals. However, no government interest is advanced by only prohibiting homosexuals from marrying one another. In other words, it discriminates against homosexuals because it forbids them from enagaging in the fundamental right to marry the person of their choice without any rational justification.

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · March-21-14, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Equal protection does not come into play because, as I noted in the earlier post, all people have an equal right to get married; i.e., all people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That specific law does not discriminate. I favor extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, but that doesn't mean the Constitution is violated if it's not. People are confusing good and fair with the Constitution, which is appropriately void of moral judgments. The moral judgments, such as expanding the definition of marriage, is for the people, not the court.

Fortunately the courts are finding this argument as ridiculous as it is. To say that the law is not discriminatory because a gay man can marry a lesbian, is truly a specious argument. Its basically the same argument made by Virginia when they were defending the ban on inter-racial marriage: that it did not discriminate because it applied equally to all races.

Since marriage confers many legal and financial benefits, it goes way beyond a simple issue of "moral judgement".

**313WX** · March-21-14, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

How is it a violation of due process? I can't understand that thinking at all. Gay people are fully entitled to the same protections and rights in legal proceedings as are straight people. If Michigan said that gay people can't get a lawyer when charged with a crime, that would be a violation of due process. Or if we couldn't serve on juries. But in the administration of justice gay people have the same extant protections that straight people do. And the same access to voting and legislating, too.

Equal protection does not come into play because, as I noted in the earlier post, all people have an equal right to get married; i.e., all people have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That specific law does not discriminate. I favor extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions, but that doesn't mean the Constitution is violated if it's not. People are confusing good and fair with the Constitution, which is appropriately void of moral judgments. The moral judgments, such as expanding the definition of marriage, is for the people, not the court.

The purpose of the judicial system is to oversee that "the people" are doing what's legally right when voting and legislating. Just because "the people" and legislators vote a measure into law doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Courts don't give a rat's ass about moral judgments.

**313WX** · March-21-14, 04:46 PM

There was no realistic/logical reason for it to have been banned as long as it was.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · March-21-14, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

There was no realistic/logical reason for it to have been banned as long as it was.

Agreed, but I think I can explain the illogical reason: major societal institutions change slowly. Even people who don't have a "hate" based motive were not for legal marriage 20 years ago. Hell, even many gay people weren't for it then. Everyone was raised in a world where mom & dad were married, or at least where that was the norm. But the idea has taken hold over time, and a majority of people have shifted their position on the issue. People need time to adjust to change. Laws can be changed instantly; culture needs time to warm up.

**sumas** · March-21-14, 05:15 PM

Good job judge. Equal rights should be law every where in our nation.

**Scottathew** · March-21-14, 05:59 PM

I'm happy with the outcome. I have a feeling if they put it up for a vote today that the numbers will have changed greatly, perhaps even enough to get a majority to overturn it.

As more and more bigoted old people die off and are replaced by young people that are more loving and accepting of others the overall attitude will change.

**sumas** · March-22-14, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by 48307

I'm happy with the outcome. I have a feeling if they put it up for a vote today that the numbers will have changed greatly, perhaps even enough to get a majority to overturn it.

As more and more bigoted old people die off and are replaced by young people that are more loving and accepting of others the overall attitude will change.

Hey, I resent that old fart comment! We marched to end war. We marched to end bigotry. We work within our communities to enhance health and education for our youth. We put our money where our mouth is. Affluent, youth only seem to know how to text seemly useless info about themselves.

**erikd** · March-22-14, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

Hey, I resent that old fart comment! We marched to end war. We marched to end bigotry. We work within our communities to enhance health and education for our youth. We put our money where our mouth is. Affluent, youth only seem to know how to text seemly useless info about themselves.

The facts are what they are. The baby boomer generation supported racial equality, and they deserve props for that, but the vast majority of them still supported discrimination against gay people.

It's really no different that the progressive movement of the early 1900's that fought for the right of women to vote, but still wasn't too hip on equality for black people.

IMO, this is all part of a continuum. The progressives in the teens and 20s fought for gender equality and civil rights. The progressives in the 50s and 60s fought for racial equality and civil rights. The progressives now are fighting for LGBT equality and civil rights.

We know that some of the old school 60's civil rights people support us, but the reality is that most baby boomers do not support LGBT equality. A 2013 Gallup poll shows that more than half of the the 50-64 [[baby boomer) generation still doesn't support gay marriage, while more than half of the 30-49 demographic supports it, and an overwhelming majority of the under 30 population supports gay marriage.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162398/se...ies-above.aspx

No hate, just reality.

**Honky Tonk** · March-22-14, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

Hey, I resent that old fart comment! We marched to end war. We marched to end bigotry. We work within our communities to enhance health and education for our youth. We put our money where our mouth is. Affluent, youth only seem to know how to text seemly useless info about themselves.

You tell em' sumas!!!!!

**Scottathew** · March-22-14, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by sumas

Hey, I resent that old fart comment! We marched to end war. We marched to end bigotry. We work within our communities to enhance health and education for our youth. We put our money where our mouth is. Affluent, youth only seem to know how to text seemly useless info about themselves.

HAHA. I should not have been as blanketing as I was.

I was thinking of my grandparents, who were all racist. My remaining grandparent comments about "negros" when we're out in public, and the comments aren't nice comments. I think he's starting to come down with dementia though, so maybe that's to blame...

There are a lot of older folks who have been on the tolerant, loving side of history.

**Gistok** · March-22-14, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by 48307

As more and more bigoted old people die off and are replaced by young people that are more loving and accepting of others the overall attitude will change.

Whoa.... time to take of those blinders pal.... when was bigotry a domain of only old people??

How do you explain away all those young skin heads??

There's no magic age of either bigotry or love...

**Hypestyles** · March-21-14, 05:59 PM

I wonder how hardcore will Bill Schuette start appealing this? If you're a fiscal conservative, the resource prioritizing of this by the Atty. General's office should be at least somewhat concerning..

I hope that urban Detroit's pastoral class doesn't start whipping up their congregations over this, especially considering the much-more pressing issues with the ongoing city bankruptcy and the state of public services here.

**Scottathew** · March-21-14, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

I hope that urban Detroit's pastoral class doesn't start whipping up their congregations over this, especially considering the much-more pressing issues with the ongoing city bankruptcy and the state of public services here.

And also the history of oppression that black people have experienced, and the racism that they still experience today. Hopefully that will make people realize that there are more important things to do than to unfairly go after people because of religious beliefs and prejudices.

**trotwood** · March-21-14, 08:36 PM

Judge Friedman's ruling makes me so very very proud to live in Michigan! I applaud&congratulate April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse. I wish them&their children all the love and happiness life has to offer.
I hope this ruling is allowed to stand. Equality means nothing if it's only for a few rather than for all.
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselvesL
and,under a just GOD,
cannot long retain it." -Abraham Lincoln April 6,1859

**Vic01** · March-22-14, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

I wonder how hardcore will Bill Schuette start appealing this? If you're a fiscal conservative, the resource prioritizing of this by the Atty. General's office should be at least somewhat concerning..

He already has...
"Schuette filed the request with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati at 5:17 p.m., about 10 minutes after Friedman’s ruling showed up on the federal docket in Detroit. The Appeals Court acknowledged the receipt of the motion at 5:45 p.m."

http://www.freep.com/article/2014032...ng-will-voters