Michigan's same sex marriage ban declared unconstitutional

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

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]

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]

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]

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.