Michigan's same sex marriage ban declared unconstitutional

[dbc]

Oladub:

I don't know of any decision that struck down a gay marriage ban based on a definition in a dictionary. Instead, states have been unable to demonstrate a legitimate government interest advanced by banning homosexual marriage. To be sure, the definition has changed as society's attitudes have changed, but the dictionary is not a primary source of legal authority.

As for polygamous and familial same-sex marriages, i don't know what effect the recent rulings will have because they involve separate issues. Polygamy concerns the government's interest in limiting the number of mariage partners, while familial marriage concerns its interest in limiting mariage because of familial relationship. No such issues arise in the recent rulings. Moreover, polygamous are traditionally heterosexual, so i see no legal relationship between gay mariage and polygamy. If polygamy violates due process and equal protection, it does so regardless of the legality of same sex marriage.

[dbc]

Cjd:

So what is your point? Are you saying this judge - and the various others throughout the country who have struck down gay marriage prohibitions - have issued legally unjustifiable opinions? How does the speed of the opinion - in which the judge found the Michigan Marriage Amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause - or the denial of a stay request invalidate the opinion, as you imply. Perhaps, the unconstitutionality of such laws has become so obvious that a judge has acted within his authority to quickly issue an opinion and deny a request to stay his opinion. He may well get overruled on appeal, but that does not mean his opinion lacked legal justification.

[trotwood]

"Good job judge"from me means [[1):I like[[love actually)the outcome and [[2)The judge,imo,delivered a proper equitable decision.

Moreover, w/r/t everyone that has said "Good job judge," I am curious to know if they really mean he did a good job [[being a fair and impartial judge) or whether they really mean "I like the outcome." My guess is the latter. That's ok too, but quite a different assertion.

[Vic01]

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

[Vic01]

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.

saw it on the news tonight... this local "leader" already got started

Rev. Roland Caldwell, Burnette Inspirational Church
http://www.wxyz.com/news/reaction-af...x-marriage-ban

[oladub]

dbc, You missed my first point which had to do with the meaning of the word 'marriage' being changed over time. If marriage meant, as it used to through most of human history, that marriage was only between a man and a woman, then gay marriage would be be legally impossible because of the meaning of words. However, since the dictionary meaning has been changed and now includes same sex marriage, judges would be remiss not to allow gays to marry. Welcome to Newspeak.

I disagree about polygamy. We always hear about if two same sex people love each other they should be able to marry like everyone else. Well then, what if three or more people love each other? I don't understand the sex of people who want to marry is more important than the number of people who want to be married. What on earth would be the government's interest be in limiting the number of marriage partners?

[jerrytimes]

What I don't understand is why people need the government to ok their marriage. I personally was annoyed that I had to pay the government money to get a license to get married. Why do they have a say in it?

[DetBill]

Not sure if anyone saw Hugh Perkins Fox show on this topic with both sides represented but I couldn't believe when the black minister and guest talk show host were talking, and explaining how this threatened the traditional family of one father and one mother, and then started to talk about cultural differences, the minister began imitating a middle eastern accent talking to a regular American and showing the differences. I couldn't believe he did that, how degrading to a middle eastern person. These ministers are really prejudiced, just amazing. If a Caucasian person started mimicking a black accent on air they would have been pummeled by them. Unbelievable how much they hate gay people. If anyone should understand the atrocities of prejudice you think they would

[erikd]

Why we got here, by the way, underpins a key Libertarian argument about government in general. The difficulties here, and the reason these cases are filed, is that governments provide special benefits to people whom the government decides are "married", which do not equally apply to others. So in the adoption case at hand here,

1. Any single person can adopt.
2. Any married couple can adopt.
3. No two other people can adopt.

By what token does that make any logical sense at all?

Here is the Libertarian view on marriage.

1. If you belong to a religion that recognizes marriage as being any special kind of a thing, then marriage to you is whatever your religion says it is.
2. If you don't, then marriage is a private contract between two adults.
3. The state has absolutely no business in deciding who should get married, as it is either a religious matter or a private, contractual matter.
4. The state absolutely steps in it when it decides to provide benefits to certain classes of people based on their life situation, and the state should stop doing all of that.

Once you start providing benefits to only people in certain situations, you are certainly skating right on the edge of the equal protection clause, and may not be astonished when a judge calls you out on it.

The problem with this strict Libertarian point of view is that it undercuts the whole concept of legally enforceable contracts.

This isn't about the government providing special benefits to certain classes of people. This is about the rights of all people to enter into legally binding contracts and civil unions.

I agree that government shouldn't provide special benefits and tax breaks to people just because they are married, but the government should recognize and enforce the contractual terms of marriage/civil unions.

It is nonsensical to say that marriage [[or any other agreement entered into by two or more parties) should be a "private contract."

What the fuck is a "private contract?" A "private contract" that isn't legally enforceable is not a contract, it is simply nothing.

The problem with this Libertarian ideal of the government recognizing nothing is that it strips away our individual freedom to enter into legally binding agreements of our own accord, and gives all of our rights of self determination away to either our blood relations or the state.

If this Libertarian ideal of "private contacts" were to be enacted, then people would not be able to legally hold joint property and assets, nor would they be able to allow anybody besides a blood relative or the state to have a say in their end of life care or custodial decisions.

One of the most important functions of government is its function as an impartial arbiter and enforcer of contractual agreements. Without that, all we have is anarchy, which is not the panacea that many anti-government ideologues thinks it is.

Ending special tax breaks for married people is a good idea that I support. Ending government recognition of marriage/civil unions is a terrible idea that will only strip people of their rights of self-determination and personal freedoms.

[mcsdetroitfriend]

Wow! Lots of ignorant comments going on...it's literally like saying people of a different color can't marry...let people be happy, they're not hurting you. Let them be miserable like you in your marriage

[sumas]

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.

[Gistok]

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...

[Meddle]

Somehow, I always knew Bernie would end up in the history books for something.

---

And, yeah, that vote is 10 years old. Take another Poll Billy.

[erikd]

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.

[coracle]

Does this mean I can marry my daughter or my son so that on my demise I can pass my estate on to them without incurring a taxable event? Come to think about it why can't I marry multiple partners? Isn't it unconstitutional to restrict what I want. This looks interesting also of things to come,
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-n...edding-3225948

[Pam]

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.

Actually a lot of the early feminists came out of the abolition movement.

[Honky Tonk]

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]

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.

[Danny]

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.

[Danny]

In 2004 People of Michigan have decided that same sex marriage is illegal! Having that ruling overturned by the state supreme court means our vote will not count! That is not democracy!

I and all the churches, synagogues and mosques in State of Michigan will fight to prevent homosexual marriage from happening.

[bailey]

Does this mean I can marry my daughter or my son so that on my demise I can pass my estate on to them without incurring a taxable event? Come to think about it why can't I marry multiple partners? Isn't it unconstitutional to restrict what I want. This looks interesting also of things to come,
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-n...edding-3225948

i think its cute when these stupid canards are rehashed over and over. you're just precious.

I'm going to try to use small words because apparently you are very dense. Its not unconstitutional to have rules, its unconstitutional to have rules that have NO rational basis. There is no rational basis to deny marriage to gay people------which is the lowest burden on the state.... the government doesn't need a ton of reasons, just ONE good one. Schutte and the rest can't even come up with ONE which is why it lost here and why its lost in every one of these cases post Windsor.

[cjd]

Cjd:

So what is your point? Are you saying this judge - and the various others throughout the country who have struck down gay marriage prohibitions - have issued legally unjustifiable opinions? How does the speed of the opinion - in which the judge found the Michigan Marriage Amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause - or the denial of a stay request invalidate the opinion, as you imply. Perhaps, the unconstitutionality of such laws has become so obvious that a judge has acted within his authority to quickly issue an opinion and deny a request to stay his opinion. He may well get overruled on appeal, but that does not mean his opinion lacked legal justification.

Reread my post. I said the outcome was never really in doubt with this judge. That was my claim. In support of that I offered the facts of the brevity and speed with which he put out his opinion, in combination with the evidentiary rulings on the witnesses, as well as the denial of the stay. I would also offer in support of my claim that he originally found the plaintiffs likely did not have standing to make their original claims and 'invited' them to file the eq pro claim so that they could continue to go forward. I think my claim is supported.

You have tried to rebut an inference I have not claimed to make. Don't mix up 'never in doubt' with 'legally unjustifiable.' I made the former but not the later.

[SDCC]

From the Twitter account of WXYZ:



Check out all of these same-sex couples ready to get married in Washtenaw County. http://bit.ly/1ioEbDf pic.twitter.com/1IZrq5pkOe

[Crystal]

I can't believe we're still arguing about this in 2014. Yesterday was a great day for Michigan. About time.

[Blueidone]

IMHO...the general opposition to gay marriage is based in religion. The often quoted reason to oppose it is "the Bible says...". When the good old U. S. of A was founded, it was founded on religious freedom; the freedom to follow the religion of your choice, or to not follow a religion if you don't want to, or to interpret your religion in various ways as befits your way of living.

Therefore, any ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional because it limits the religious freedom of the members of our society who happen to be gay. Or...

As stated in the lawsuit, it is unconstitutional because it does not afford the same rights to gays that heterosexual people have.

I know that each of us has an opinion about people who are gay or lesbian. However, I look at it this way, if you believe in God, and God creates everything on earth, then God created each of us; gay, straight, lesbian, tall, short, black, white, brown, fat, skinny, blonde, dark-haired, whatever the combination.

If we could all just stop judging other people for not being what we think they should be and accept them for what they are..children of the earth, this would be a much better world to live in.