Michigan strikes down gay marriage ban

April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are pediatric nurses. They are also two of the plaintiffs who won a federal court ruling overturning Michigan's same-sex marriage ban, only to lose at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. But just as they fought to bring marriage to the Great Lake State, so are they fighting to adopt their children and raise them as a legally-married couple.

And yesterday, the stakes got higher as the couple adopted their fourth special needs child.

The New Civil Rights Movement has been following the family for years, ever since they were the subject of our 2012 profile, "Mother’s Day On Our Radar – Lesbian Supermoms Take On Family Equality." (You can read all our articles on the DeBoer-Rowse family here.) http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...an_for_freedom_to_marry_adopt_their_4th_child

 

I'm posting this here, because like Michigan, Tennessee is a sixth circuit state. Interestingly, before now both supporters and opponents of equality were pushing for SCOTUS to take a case. Could it be that Tenn. is afraid of what the outcome might be? SCOTUS never said that the states right to define marriage is absolute and in fact there is precedent to the contrary ( Loving V. Virginia)

 

I say that this will not stand! The Constitutional Accountability Center is another great site for information on this issue.

 

I love the CAC! Check it out!!!

 

Well, now that gays can marry in most of the country, lets are focusing on getting the government out of all marriage. We should focus on polygamy next. We can use the exact same arguments to push for legalization, that polygamy only effects the people taking part and no one else.

 

Oh please. Get the government out of marriage? Why ? What purpose would that serve. No one has been able to give a coherent and detailed explanation of what that would look like, how it would work in reality, and why it would be better than what we have now.

Focus on polygamy ? The fact is that few if any are focusing on polygamy or any other form of alternative sexual or relationship arrangements. If anyone else wants to push their issues then they can file law suits , build organizations , and raise funds to do so. As with gay marriage, states seeking to uphold bans on restrictions to these practices have a right and an obligation to demonstrate that there is , at minimum, a rational basis to maintain those restrictions. It's a separate issue. What exactly is the point of this post anyway?

 

I can tell what it would look like. If two or more people wanted to get married, they could do it without the government giving them permission to.

The government's only authority in marriage should be setting the age of consent, and overseeing any lawsuits that arise as part of a divorce.

 

That is hardly a comprehensive assessment of what "government out of marriage" would look like. First of all, if government were still regulating the age of consent, then government would still be involved. Secondly, government plays a far greater role in marriage then giving permission to certain people to marry. Consider social security benefits, the handling of inheritance, joint tax filing and much more. You might want to read this and reconsider : http://russellandduenes.wordpress.c...with-all-governmental-regulation-of-marriage/

Also, you fail to answer the question of why. How would anything be better? Think!

 

If marriage is defined as a contract between consenting adults, you must have an age at which someone is considered an adult. The age of consent would simply be the age at which a minor may enter contracts as an adults. The government is the logical decider of the age of consent.

Taking government out of marriage simply means they would no longer have the authority to determine marriage rights between adults, nor would a couple need government approval to get a divorce.

People would still be able to have a court mediate a divorce if they chose to.

There really is no reason to require licenses to marry or for the government to have any say whatsoever in who can marry who, except that all involved must be consent adults, or minors over a certain age.

 

I have no problem with polygamy being legalized, I think it is more an administration issue than anything else. But why is it folks (mostly those on the right) are so interested NOW in getting the government out of marriage? Why didn't they mind government being involved in marriage BEFORE gays could be allowed to marry?

It seems like this is the stomping cry of the anti-SSM crowd that now SSM is allowed, the government should get out of marriage altogether. It makes no sense.

Also, all I have to say is GOOD LUCK trying to get the majority to go along with the opinion that the government should get out of marriage. Social Security Benefits, Insurance, etc are all things that marriage takes care of without having to go through tons and tons of paperwork. Even the majority of the straight conservatives aren't going to go along with that. In fact, I would wager a good amount that there is LESS people that want to actually get government out of marriage than there are gay people in America.

 

Well there is one major reason you are NOT going to get government out of marriage. The state makes money of of licenses and they aren't going to give that up, nor are the politicians that would make the law.

Also things like Social Security just can't be "power of attorney" to someone. There are rights given automatically to married couples that would take tons of paperwork and time to get into place that a marriage does automatically. Processing time, paperwork, etc. You are not going to get a lawmaker to go along with the idea of "Let's make it so the state doesn't get money and we increase the difficulty in getting people's benefits and rights".

It's a pipedream and simply isn't going to happen. You'd have an easier time getting peace on Earth than trying to get the government out of marriage.

 

It is in fact a contract between consenting adults. And as with all contracts, the government sets the parameters of the content through contract law. Thus the government cannot really be “out of marriage” Why do you focus on the age of consent to the exclusion of other issues that the government might have a legitimate interest in regulating. For instance, should a father and daughter be allowed to marry? Aside from the genetic issue if they were to have a child, don’t you think that it might make for a rather strange relationship? Don’t you think that the child would be a bit confused?

Would this not completely upend the concept of marriage and family as we know it? Imagine the howls from those who want to preserve traditional marriage. While there is much controversy over marriage, there is some consensus that one purpose of marriage it to form new nuclear families. Limiting government permission to the age of consent has the potential of creating an inbred, tribal society as opposed to one of healthy diversity.
I find that some push this issue out of disdain of “big government” and government involvement in what they consider private matters. However, if you read the article that I posted, you would see that at very good case was made, that deregulating marriage would, in the long run, create more government involvement and entanglements, and yes more big government.

Allow me to refer you again to the article that I posted:

The other common motive is to circumvent the issue of government sanctioned same sex marriage. I suspect that is in fact your motive since you are posting this on a thread about gay marriage. Otherwise it would be more appropriate to post it as a separate topic. By the way, did you notice that those in the article who think that doing away with legal marriage is a bad idea, want to preserve it in order to protect traditional marriage?
In any case, that won’t work either. Gays may have some sort of equality, but the forces of anti-equality are not likely to cave into allowing gay people to enter into a contract of any kind that is equal to those that heterosexuals can execute. The rancor would continue and nothing would be solved. All that would be accomplished would be to sink the ship of matrimony as we know it, in an attempt to drown the rats. And those rats will survive. And again, are those marriage traditionalists-those who want to preserve marriage as we know it going to go for that?

And, if marriage were not sanctioned by government, who would officiate at weddings. Would people be forced to have a religious ceremony because government officials like judges are barred from performing weddings? Would people who refuse a religious ceremony have to settle for signing papers in a lawyer’s office, and then have joe blow down the street say a few words? Ya think that might spoil the idea of marriage a bit? I suppose that a whole new industry of private, secular Las Vegas style wedding chapels could spring up- but that would require government regulation.

Lastly, you still fail to address the issue of all of those government benefits that go with government sanctioned marriage. Nor do you explain what purpose it would serve and how anyone, or society would be better for it. In short, you and others who say “government out of marriage” have really not thought through the implications to any great extent. It seems to me there is about as much of a chance of garnering wide support and making it work as there is to get a pig to fly.

 

Why exactly should we focus on polygamy next? Who are "we'? Are you in favor of it? If so, perhaps you can make an argument for it independent of the gay marriage issue.

To start with, if you’re really talking about Polygamy, it is an anachronism. It does not make sense to even be talking about it. Where in western culture , aside from an occasional religious cult is it found? To oppose polygamy while supporting same sex marriage is not a double standard, it is not hypocrisy as some have charged, because they are very different animals. Same sex marriage is about an equal relationship between two consenting adults. Polygamy is a form of male domination over multiple females who do not themselves have the option of having multiple spouses. Often, the females are younger than the male and emotionally vulnerable and the arrangement is inherently unequal and sexist. That is not acceptable. Opposition is indeed morally defensible.

Now group marriages, among consenting adults, on an equal basis is another story. For some reason though, those who bring up polygamy never mention this. I take no position on this but I can tell you that such arrangements to occur informally. However, I also maintain that like polygamy, it should not be part of the same conversation as same sex marriage. In the case of same sex marriage, you have one group –gays – asking for exactly the same thing that another group – alike in mostly all ways- already has. In the case of group marriage-the goal would be to establish an entirely new arrangement that no one currently has. In addition, it is not a gay or a straight issue. Everyone could be effected by it, although I’m willing to bet that there are more heterosexual’s engaged in group marriage then there are homosexuals. You might want to google the Polyamory Society. Yes it’s a real thing promoting group marriage.
If anybody feels that they want, Polygamy, Polyandry or any form of group marriage, they are free to circulate a petition, and try to get a lawmaker to sponsor a bill. Alternately, they can file a law suit and claim that their rights are being violated. However, I would advise them to not claim that their rights are being violated because gays now have the right to marry. They are not- in the language of the court-similarly situated.

The state-assuming that it would be opposed- would then be tasked with convincing the court that there is, at minimum, a rational basis for not allowing such marriages. So please don't try to say that anybody else is being left out or treated unfairly because of gay marriage advances. The whole idea that other, alternative marital arrangements are equal to same sex marriage and should be treated the same is absurd.

 

Marriage is more of a social contract than legal one.

The governments only authorities when it comes to marriage should be
1; Setting the age of consent.
2; Mediating a divorce or prenuptual agreement when asked to (it should not be required to have government input or approval for either)
3; Setting any tax benefits marriage allows.

 

Well, lets see. I wrote a comprehensive critique of your "government out of marriage" idea, which is widely viewed as ridiculous, unworkable and pointless. I addressed each and every point that you made. For your part, all that you have done is repeat the same thing over and over again , without responding or even acknowledging the points that I've made. Game over. My work is done here.

 

We're still waiting to hear if SCOTUS is going to take the Michigan marriage case. It should be soon!

 

I would love to know which Justices voted to take the cases. Anybody?

 

This explains a lot about where some of the strange ideas expressed on this forum come from.

 

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
APRIL DEBOER, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
RICHARD SNYDER, et al.,
Respondents.
---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
On Writ Of Certiorari To The
United States Court Of Appeals
For The Sixth Circuit
---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/PartyBriefs/14-571_Brief_Of_DeBoer.pdf

---------------------------------  ---------------------------------

Now, those of you who are against same sex marriage and adoption by gays, tell us again how much you care about the children