Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage Nationwide

[DetroitBoy]

Many Attorneys General declined to defend anti-marriage equality laws that they interpreted as being unconstitutional. Michigan's AG decided to waste taxpayer funds on what many felt was a losing proposition. http://www.afer.org/blog/attorneys-g...sbian-couples/

Of course Michigan, led by the hard right, decided to fight to the bitter end.

The more the world changes around it, the more the bigoted way of life in the State remains the same. That's Pure Michigan.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Many Attorneys General declined to defend anti-marriage equality laws that they interpreted as being unconstitutional. Michigan's AG decided to waste taxpayer funds on what many felt was a losing proposition. http://www.afer.org/blog/attorneys-g...sbian-couples/

Of course Michigan, led by the hard right, decided to fight to the bitter end.

Then we'll just agree to disagree then. You think that AGs should decide which laws they defend, and I think they should at least make an effort to pretend to be something other than politicians and enforce the laws the state has duly passed.

[iheartthed]

The first case on SSM was in 1993 in Hawaii, where a District Court judge held that the state's definition of marriage as between opposite sex people was unconstitutional. That was a state law that was in place in all 50 states at the time.

The Hawaii 1993 case was not in federal courts. Hawaii's state Supreme Court ruled that not granting licenses to same sex couples violated the state's constitution. After this Hawaii and other states began to pass constitutional amendments to define marriage in the constitution, which is what made this a federal issue, as I said.

[248lurker]

In Canada, nobody talks about gay marriage. It really flies under the radar in that it is not a controversial issue anymore. More pressing issues, big time. I'm glad for folks who want to marry, and yes, the rainbow colors on the White House were lovely.

What about the flap involving TWU's law school for discouraging extramarital sex between all unmarried couples*--same or opposite sex? Has that been resolved?

[ETA: Yes, being a faith-based institution, they believe in heterosexual marriage only, but their policies seem to discourages all sex outside of that]

* See http://twu.ca/academics/school-of-la...media/faq.html and http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/b...iscrimination/

[BankruptcyGuy]

The Hawaii 1993 case was not in federal courts. Hawaii's state Supreme Court ruled that not granting licenses to same sex couples violated the state's constitution. After this Hawaii and other states began to pass constitutional amendments to define marriage in the constitution, which is what made this a federal issue, as I said.

State referenda were passed to change state constitutions, protecting against the activity of state court judges. Since state constitutions were changed, the recourse was to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. As indicated, the referenda were a response to court decisions, not the other way around.

[detroitbob]

Boy oh boy, you Americans don't know what you are getting into. When gay marriage was legalized nationwide here in Canada, the oceans started to boil, pestilence took over the lands, brimstone fell from the skies, and humanity was damaged beyond repair. Those few that survived wished they were dead.

Who to blame, BLAME CANADA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA

[DetroitBoy]

Then we'll just agree to disagree then. You think that AGs should decide which laws they defend, and I think they should at least make an effort to pretend to be something other than politicians and enforce the laws the state has duly passed.

That's total bullshit. The AG has the discretion to decide what to fight and that they don't. They are all political. The reason the AG in Michigan decided to go after this is because he wanted to further his career not do anything to protect the civil rights of gay people in his state.

Don't attempt to hide your bigotry under the guise of defending a law that discriminates against people.

[canuck]

What about the flap involving TWU's law school for discouraging extramarital sex between all unmarried couples*--same or opposite sex? Has that been resolved?

[ETA: Yes, being a faith-based institution, they believe in heterosexual marriage only, but their policies seem to discourages all sex outside of that]



* See http://twu.ca/academics/school-of-la...media/faq.html and http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/b...iscrimination/

According to the article, they didn't get anywhere near first base since the projected law school was rejected by members of the British Columbia bar. Maybe Kiraly could fill us in on this...

[BankruptcyGuy]

That's total bullshit. The AG has the discretion to decide what to fight and that they don't. They are all political. The reason the AG in Michigan decided to go after this is because he wanted to further his career not do anything to protect the civil rights of gay people in his state.

Don't attempt to hide your bigotry under the guise of defending a law that discriminates against people.

Ummmmmm, ok.

[Király]

According to the article, they didn't get anywhere near first base since the projected law school was rejected by members of the British Columbia bar. Maybe Kiraly could fill us in on this...

The law societies [[that's what we call state bars) of several provinces have said that they will refuse to licence lawyers that come from TWU's law school. TWU has been fighting them back in court and has had mixed success. http://www.cbc.ca/1.3094683

[aj3647]

Then we'll just agree to disagree then. You think that AGs should decide which laws they defend, and I think they should at least make an effort to pretend to be something other than politicians and enforce the laws the state has duly passed.

If the AG shouldn't act like a politician then why is the AG position a partisan one, with candidates nominated by political parties? Circuit Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected in non-partisan elections, but the AG is not. The AG position, by definition, is a political one. So of course the AG is going to be political, he IS a politician.

If he was asked to defend a pre-exisitng gun control law or abortion law, I bet he may have well refused to defend it. He fought for the gay marriage ban because it was politically expedient for him to do so. If you're a Republican looking to appease a Right Wing white voter base, you can't go wrong shitting all over gay people.

[scooter]

That's it America has become Sodom and Gomorrah waiting to be destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven.

Amen Danny, God is going to Destroy America now, he already gave us a wake up call in 911 and hurican Katrina, Now watch all the bad weather and other things we are going to have,
yes God is a loving God but is also a very revenagance God, you cannot change Gods word

[Dan Wesson]

Main stream media and their sound bites.... got me thinking.

2015 the New Summer of Love

They be Prancing in the Streets

[beachboy]

Amen Danny, God is going to Destroy America now...

1974: Gerry Ford sez "Whip Inflation Now" => WIN
2015: scooter sez "God is going to Destroy America Now..." => DAN

oops ... hidden names, scary meanings, wot' next? Bible codes?

How 'bout we pay attention to the attorneys in this group? "The
decision" is the result of a jurisprudential proceeding. The pop-
ular huhu for or against the Supreme Court decision is irrelevant.
Its impacts on Michigan's implementation of the decision are not.

Why not begin by reading the decision itself?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

The four dissenting opinions are appended to the above PDF.

This is an issue of jurisprudence, not of intuition or emotion. The
issue at hand pertains in practice to contractual rights and respon-
sibilities under civil law, not to religious notions or doctrines.
__________________________________________________ ________

[Bill Simpson]

One correction to the title of this thread. It's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. An attorney friend of mine is setting up a tax avoidance marriage package, where hetero same-sex people can get married to reduce their taxes and obtain other benefits. It's not a bad deal, I'm thinking of getting married to a friend who is also a long time single guy. We will create a pre-nup that states the marriage is for tax purposes only and none of our property will be shared. We won't live together or share any property. Nothing will change at all, we'll just be friends like always, but I'll save about $15k per year in taxes. Not a bad way to go.

[bailey]

Then we'll just agree to disagree then. You think that AGs should decide which laws they defend, and I think they should at least make an effort to pretend to be something other than politicians and enforce the laws the state has duly passed.

Which is the exact logic this AG used....except he seems to forget all about the voters and their referendum when it comes to marijuana... he has in every instance stood aside and deferred to federal law or local law enforcement to limit the "will of the people".

He's a partisan hack and his defense of the ban was borne out of his hard right ideology. If he were truly just defending the state's constitution, he' should be defending all of it...not just the parts he likes. But of course that is the hallmark of today's evangelical teahadist right wing cafeteria christianity.

[bailey]

One correction to the title of this thread. It's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. An attorney friend of mine is setting up a tax avoidance marriage package, where hetero same-sex people can get married to reduce their taxes and obtain other benefits. It's not a bad deal, I'm thinking of getting married to a friend who is also a long time single guy. We will create a pre-nup that states the marriage is for tax purposes only and none of our property will be shared. We won't live together or share any property. Nothing will change at all, we'll just be friends like always, but I'll save about $15k per year in taxes. Not a bad way to go.

if you're just now discovering contract marriages...well, clearly haven't spent time around a military base or any veterans. your attorney friend is about 15 years late to the party. No need to marry your guy friend. plenty of women out there willing to do it for a small fee.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

I'm pretty sure that the spread of same-sex marriage is why Bristol Palin keeps getting knocked up. And can't find a husband.

[canuck]

I'm pretty sure that the spread of send-sex marriage is why Bristol Palin keeps getting knocked up. And can't find a husband.

I hear she has a Nixon look-alike blow-up doll for a husband.

[Bill Simpson]

if you're just now discovering contract marriages...well, clearly haven't spent time around a military base or any veterans. your attorney friend is about 15 years late to the party. No need to marry your guy friend. plenty of women out there willing to do it for a small fee.

Thanks. I'll look into this. I actually have two female candidates. Does this new law allow having two spouses?

[BankruptcyGuy]

Which is the exact logic this AG used....except he seems to forget all about the voters and their referendum when it comes to marijuana... he has in every instance stood aside and deferred to federal law or local law enforcement to limit the "will of the people".

He's a partisan hack and his defense of the ban was borne out of his hard right ideology. If he were truly just defending the state's constitution, he' should be defending all of it...not just the parts he likes. But of course that is the hallmark of today's evangelical teahadist right wing cafeteria christianity.

Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, even for medical purposes. Even the most rookie attorney knows that if the state says something is legal, and the feds say it's not, it's not. See Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. [[3 Dall.) 199 [[1796).

And he was defending the constitution in the SSM cases, as amended by the voters of the state.

Again, if AGs start picking and choosing which portions of the Constitution to defend, you might end up with some results you really won't like. I don't think such picking and choosing is appropriate by an AG of either party.

[Danny]

One correction to the title of this thread. It's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. An attorney friend of mine is setting up a tax avoidance marriage package, where hetero same-sex people can get married to reduce their taxes and obtain other benefits. It's not a bad deal, I'm thinking of getting married to a friend who is also a long time single guy. We will create a pre-nup that states the marriage is for tax purposes only and none of our property will be shared. We won't live together or share any property. Nothing will change at all, we'll just be friends like always, but I'll save about $15k per year in taxes. Not a bad way to go.

Gay marriages is same sex marriages. Homosexual marriages is same-sex marriages.

[Bill Simpson]

Gay marriages is same sex marriages. Homosexual marriages is same-sex marriages.

Agree, but not all same sex marriages are homo or gay.

[248lurker]

The law societies [[that's what we call state bars) of several provinces have said that they will refuse to licence lawyers that come from TWU's law school. TWU has been fighting them back in court and has had mixed success. http://www.cbc.ca/1.3094683

Thanks for an update on this topic.

[Wesley Mouch]

The law societies [[that's what we call state bars) of several provinces have said that they will refuse to licence lawyers that come from TWU's law school. TWU has been fighting them back in court and has had mixed success. http://www.cbc.ca/1.3094683

True north strong and free if you believe what's politically correct it seems.

Does anyone else find this discrimination disturbing? The law societies may disagree with TWU -- but to discriminate against their graduates based on the school's actions, and not the graduates actions nor even their thoughts?