Michigan strikes down gay marriage ban

I believe that there are differences, but again, for another time and place.

 

How is pointing out ignorance in the family representative of people with actual educations ?

 

You're missing one minor point.... the subject line of this thread is a lie.

The ban is in place... nothing was struck down.

 

Tiiiiiiiiiiiiieeiiiiiimmmeee

iisssss onn mmyyyyyy side

yes it is!

 

True, some day you can drive to Michigan and get married. Congrats.

Your comment made it seem like you fell for the misinformation, is all.

 

That's a fair observation.

I did take the story at face value but my comment was a general comment on the trend of these laws getting struck down. It will take a while longer in my home state of PA though, lots of old school folks in the rural areas here. Won't directly affect me though as I'm lucky enough to have been born into the sexual orientation that people aren't trying to oppress for no reason with the law.

 

I had to edit this quotation as it appeared to respond within a quotation of mine. Hope I got it correct.

This issue is not a "gay marriage" issue but instead an equal protection under the law issue where same-gender marriages are currently being addressed. It's about "equality of marriage" that is not specific to same-gender marriage and it is a mistake to limit the discussion.

Addressing "marriage" under contract law does not disparage the institution of marriage one iota. All it does is eliminate discrimination in marriage under the law. All of our "marriage laws" today are inherently discriminatory (a point same-sex marriage advocates are pointing out when same-sex marriage is prohibited under the law) but contract law is not discriminatory.

Invidious discrimination (i.e. serves no legitimate purpose of government) under the law (based upon religious opinion) in our marriage laws is the real issue that needs to be addressed because it violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

 

Invidious discrimination directly effects us all and not just those that are specifically oppressed. Opposite-sex couples are harmed by prohibitions against same-sex marriage because the violations of the Constitutional Right of equal protection under the law harms all Americans.

 

I see what you're saying and I would agree. But as far as my day-to-day life, the tangible effects that I will actually feel on my life are null which is what I meant and why I referred to myself as lucky.

 

Incorrect. It has, in fact been struck down. But that decision is on hold pending appeal. Only if an Appellate Court or the Supreme Court overturns the decision will the ban be put back in place. I wouldn't hold your breath about either.

And once one of the, what 6? similar decisions of late reaches SCOTUS, unless they do overturn, which is very, very doubtful, it will apply nationwide.

 

This points out two fundamental truths. Traditional opposite-sex marriage is not harmed by allowing same-sex marriage but all of society is harmed when same-sex marriage is prohibited under the law.

 

Personally I don't see what the big deal is as far as why some people get so bent out of shape over Gay Marriage.

We have had Gay Marriage in Massachusetts for some time and we don't either notice or care.

Besides what business is it of anyone's to tell a person who they can or cannot marry as long as it's not a sister and we have to worry about some kid being born with 3 eyes! LOL!!!

Marriage existed way before Christianity and existed even before Religion as our ancient ancestors were pairing off before we could even walk on 2 legs and Neanderthals held Marriage Ceremonies.

Marriage cannot be held as strictly a Religious Ceremony as even today people get Married by a J.P.

AboveAlpha

 

The issue is invidious discrimination under the law which adversely affects all of society.

Yes, "marriage" existed before religion and in included homosexual, polygamous and incestuous personal parntershis (i.e. marriage) as well as marriages limited to a man and a woman. Of note the earliest "marriages" are believed to have been polygamous based upon recent research.

It is somewhat out of date to be concerned with genetic defects where a couple shares a common regressive gene(s) on two counts. First of all with birth control today procreation can be prevented. Secondly we can genetically test individuals for these common regressives genes between the man and womain that cause birth defects. If we wanted to "prohibit" marriage based upon common "regressive genes" shared between a couple then that criteria would need to be applied to all couples and not just based upon close family relationships. Of course that would not imply that the "marriage" should be prohibited but instead that the couple should be warned of the dangers of procreation that are likely to result in birth defects.

 

It was attempted to be struck down by some silly judge who likes to trample constitutions.
That action was quashed, because there is a proper way to do things. It is headed to court, someday.... to be handled the way it should have been in the first place.

I notice you keep hanging on this "but it will be legal someday!".. and that has nothing to do with the conversation I was having.

Yes, it will be legal, and I couldn't give a F if you guys can marry legally or not.
Your ability to marry affects me no more than your inability to marry. Aside from the amount of whining we all hear.

Your hope in the future has nothing to do with the fact that gay marriage is illegal in Michigan... contrary to the title of the thread, and the specific conversation I was having.

 

I find it interesting that someone would believe that enforcement of the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment would be considered as "trampling on the Constitution." The federal judge struck down the law because it created invidious discrimination (i.e. there was identifiable "state's interest" to support the law) against individuals denying them the protections and benefits of the legal institution of marriage.

Of course U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman is not alone in his legal opinion as federal court after federal court has been striking down these invidious laws prohibiting same-sex marriage across the nation.

As can also be noted, going back the the very first court decision on same-sex marriage of Baker v Nelson (1971), that in that decision the court ruled that establishing a committed relationship between adults through the legal institution of marriage was a "state's interest" when it came to raising children. The plaintiffs in the Michigan case are two women raising children and, according to the Baker v Nelson decision, it's in the "State's Interest" to include them under the marriage laws because it benefits society when two adults are raising children in a legally committed relationship (i.e. marriage).

I don't know how anyone can oppose the legal institution of marriage for a same-sex couple raising children when every court that has ever addressed marriage has stated that two adults raising children in a committed relationship establshed by the marriage laws is beneficial to society and therefore an "interest of the State."

 

Oh, please. We have at least half a dozen identical findings from Courts across the country. They're not trampling on the Constitution. They're enforcing it.

 

Because Michigan's Constitution says gay marriage is illegal. Maybe if you read it you could grasp the reality of what I said.


The "trampling" is in reference to some judge deciding a law isn't a law anymore. It's not that easy... nor should it be.

Obama's treatment of the U.S. Constitution is just one good example why.

 

So the Michigan Constitution's own laws against gay marriage are being enforced... by saying gay marriage should be legal?

Yeah.. that makes loads of sense.

Derr...

 

Ms. Floss, Face it. some people do not want to understand, or are not able to understand certain things. In this case, those things being that judicial review is a long standing principle of constitutional law, as is federal supremacy over the states. They seem to believe, or pretend to believe that the supreme law of the land is still the Articles of Confederation, abd that it was not superseded by the constitution. Waddda ya gonna do?

 

If Michigan's Constitution were the supreme law of the land, you would have a point. But, sadly for you, it's not, and it is subject to scrutiny based on the US Constitution which IS the Supreme Law of the Land. And that clause, rightfully so, was found to violate it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's Mr. LOL. The boobs in my avatar belong to my wife. Aside from that, I agree with every word you said.

 

OK got it. This one , what ever it is , is sooooo annoying! It really has no idea about how things work

 

Lol, it's the topic of the entire thread ffs.

Yw, genius.

If I'd known you weren't even reading, and only online to argue, I wouldn't have bothered replying.

 

To: Shiva- Thank you for mentioning Baker v. Nelson. It gave me the impetus to look more closely at its relationship to the Michigan case. Not surprisingly, it was cited by the State defendants and happily shot down by the trial judge (along with the rest of the states case). I’m attaching the full text of the opinion ( Hope it works)

CC: Micketto-Thank you also. You too- with your inane ranting and bloviating about how a federal judge is trampling on the state constitution –inspired me to put this together. Perhaps if you take the time to read this, the text of the opinion, and my analysis of Baker ( http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...l-stand-much-longer-obstacle-right-marry.html ) you will have something intelligent and relevant to say.
Baker as applied to the Deboer v. Snyder (The Michigan case):

I think that it’s fascinating and encouraging that Judge BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN, in ruling that the Michigan Marriage Amendment was unconstitutional cited, among many other case, Baker V Nelson. While buried on page 27 of the opinion, it is significant. As we know, Baker is often cited by opponents of gay marriage as the bulwark against any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage” and in fact, was invoked by the state defendants in Deboer. Like Baker, Deboer centered on the issue of children in relation to the right to marry.

The case stemmed from a marriage application filed by two male University of Minnesota students. The clerk denied the application based on a state law that restricted marriage to “persons of the opposite sex.” The couple then filed a lawsuit against the clerk, Gerald Nelson, asserting violations of their due process and equal protection rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment and their “privacy rights” founded in the Ninth and First Amendments. A lower court upheld the denial of the application and dismissed the claims. They appealed :

Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971) is a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. It ruled, “The institution of marriage as between a man and a woman, uniquely involving the procreation of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” It’s important to note that the court held that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia did not apply because “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” http://scarinciattorney.com/baker-v-nelson-the-often-forgotten-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case/

The case was further appealed. However, SCOTUS dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."
In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[15] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[16] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case.[17]

The Michigan case, DEBOER vs. SNYDER also started out being about the issue of children. The plaintiff, lesbian woman, sued the state as a result of their not being allowed to jointly adopt each other’s children. The Michigan law restricts joint adoption to single people or married couples. After the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring that action, they amended the complaint to challenge Michigan’s Marriage Amendment that restricts marriage to one man and one woman.

The state defendants, in support of their argument that the MMA has legitimate purposes, offered the following reasons for excluding same-sex couples from Michigan’s definition of marriage: (1) providing
children with “biologically connected” role models of both genders that are necessary to foster
healthy psychological development; (2) avoiding the unintended consequences that might result
from redefining marriage; (3) upholding tradition and morality; and (4) promoting the transition
of “naturally procreative relationships into stable unions.” Notice the similarity of the rational from Baker.


In his ruling, in addition to demolishing the notion that same sex parents are inferior to “traditional families, he cited Baker:

The state defendants have argued in the present case that Baker is binding precedent. The answer to this argument was ably articulated by Judge Shelby in Kitchen, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179331, at *23-26:
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that a summary dismissal is not binding “when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise.” Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Here, several doctrinal developments in the Court’s analysis of both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause as they apply to gay men and lesbians demonstrate that the Court’s summary dismissal in Baker has little if any precedential effect today. Not only was Baker decided before the Supreme Court held that sex is a quasi-suspect classification, see Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 688 (1973) (plurality op.), but also before the Court recognized that the Constitution protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635–636 (1996). Moreover, Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that it was unconstitutional for a state to “demean [the] existence [of gay men and lesbians] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). As discussed below, the Supreme Courts decision in Lawrence removes a justification that states could formerly cite as a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

Thus, Deboer represents yet another nail in the coffin for Baker and a clear indication that it is likely to be reversed by SCOTUS in the near future Read more about Baker: http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...l-stand-much-longer-obstacle-right-marry.html

 

The quotation cited from Baker v Nelson is erroneous as the actual decision stated:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/lambda/baker.htm

We must seriously question of why anyone would nefariously change the actual statement in the decision of Baker v Nelson to omit the "raising of children in a family" that established a "State's Interest" in the marriage laws.

Approximately 30% of all same-sex couples are raising children in a family and there is an identified State's Interest in including these marriages under the marriage laws as established by the Baker v Nelson decision.

In the actual case the plaintiff (Baker) was not raising children and failed to provide evidence of financial loss or damage in arguments. The claim by the plaintiff was that the Minnesota statutes didn't exclude same-sex marriage so it should be allowed and did not present arguments of "harm" such as denial of joint bankruptcy or inheritance rights under Federal law which would have been addressed in a Federal Court and not the State Courts. The case from the plaintiff was weak and, as noted, was filed in the wrong court at the time because federal joint tax filing status could also have been addressed in a federal court but not in the state court. Of note the Minnesota State Supreme Court, while mentioning the 14th Amendment, only had juridiction related to the Minnesota State Constitution that also contained the "equal protection clause" as a state court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a federal question.

The US Supreme Court dismissed the case due to a lack of a federal question at the time because no federal issues were being addressed by the plaintiffs. At most they reviewed the case to determine if the plaintiffs had idenified a case of "harm" that the Minnesota State Supreme Court had not addressed but no actual harm was established by the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not claim to be raising children or to be suffering any financial loss by not being allowed to marry. Had the plaintiffs been raising children then the Minnesota State Supreme Court arguably would have ruled in the plaintiff's favor because "raising children in a family" was an identified "State's Interest" related to marriage as established by the Court.

We can note as well that in 1971 if Minnesota would have included same-sex marriage under the marriage laws it still wouldn't have raised a federal question although the plaintiffs would have been allowed to file joint tax returns, been afforded inheritance rights, spousal benefits under Social Security, joint bankruptcy protection and other benefits and protections based upon "marriage" under federal laws because DOMA did not exist.

 

Read the 10th Amendment:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10/amendment.html

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits denial of equal protection under the law and neither the State or the People have the "power" to deny equal protection under the law, either by statute or state constitution, based upon the 10th Amendment because it is prohibited by the US Constitution.