USSupreme Court | Michigan Gay Marriage | Legitimate State Interest | Customary Political Processes

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Dante, Jan 9, 2015.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    US Supreme Court | Michigan Gay Marriage | Legitimate State Interest | Customary Political Processes

    ruling is coming soon... the issues getting decided?

    The U.S. Supreme Court could decide as early as today whether it will hear the case of two Hazel Park nurses who are fighting to overturn Michigan's ban on same

    ...

    The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman's earlier finding in DeBoer and Rowse's case that the state's 2004 same-sex marriage ban served no "conceivable legimate state interest" and violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitition.

    A three-judge panel at the appellate court split 2-1 against Friedman, saying it was, "Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes."
    -sex marriages.​

    U.S. Supreme Court could decide whether to hear MI same-sex marriage case
     
  2. Sonny Clark
    Offline

    Sonny Clark Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    49,052
    Thanks Received:
    5,738
    Trophy Points:
    1,870
    Location:
    Gadsden Alabama
    Ratings:
    +29,359
    How do same sex marriages violate anyone's rights, freedom, or liberties? How do same sex marriages intrude into the lives of others? Who is really harmed by allowing same sex marriages in our communities, neighborhoods, counties, parishes, or states? Can we not explain same sex marriages to our children? Of all the issues that we should be deeply concerned with, this issues has to rank very low on the priority list, one would think. Live and let live should be the order of the day, instead of disrupting lives where there's no real cause to do so.

    Same sex marriages go against certain religious beliefs, against what is commonly thought to be the "norm", but where is the absolute definitive damage to society and to mankind? Would our entire customs and traditions be tarnished to the point that it would destroy or change how we behave or act socially? Lets look beneath the "socially accepted cloud" and see if we can find cause to dam and reject those that wish to do nothing more than be happy and enjoy life with the one they consider to be the perfect companion. Surely it can't be jealousy or envy on our part. So, what is the root of the problem that rejects same sex marriages? Or, is there really a deep rooted logical reason or explanation for our "dislike", "hate", or "rabid disapproval"?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    In Massachusetts, a woman born in South Africa in 1944, became Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and in that position she ruled the Massachusetts constitution does not permit the state to deny citizens the right to same-sex marriage. She told the legislature and the people of the state that could remedy this by holding a state constitutional convention to amend the constitution.

    I always said it was brilliant in that the ruling would end up being the train that left the station on same sex marriages. Because if the state of Massachusetts had amended the constitution to ban same sex marriages there would be a federal constitutional conflict: the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    State Attorney General Bill Schuette "noted that the Supreme Court last year upheld in another Michigan case a state ballot ban on the use of race as a factor in university admissions decisions saying it is "demeaning ... to presume the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of ... sensitivity.""

    U.S. Supreme Court could decide whether to hear MI same-sex marriage case

    what this man is arguing is that a fundamental right is akin to an issue of what goes into a university admissions decision? he has a very weak argument there. He'd better have a better one.

    He can mask it with 'letting the voters decide' argument, but the courts should not allow the people to decide who does and doesn't get the guaranteed protections in the Bill of Rights -- as if all men are NOT created equal.

    I would agree not all men are created equal if I could deny some people certain things
     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    High court delays action on Michigan gay marriage case

    High court delays action on Michigan gay marriage case
    Oralandar Brand-Williams, The Detroit News 3:42 p.m. EST January 9, 2015

    It will be at least until Monday before it is known if the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a Hazel Park couple’s federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Michigan's gay marriage ban.​

     
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    Two specific issues: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf

    The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. 14-556 ) ) 14-562 ) ) 14-571 ) ) 14-574 ) OBERGEFELL, JAMES, ET AL. V. HODGES, RICHARD, ET AL. TANCO, VALERIA, ET AL. V. HASLAM, GOV. OF TN, ET AL. DeBOER, APRIL, ET AL. V. SNYDER, GOV. OF MI, ET AL. BOURKE, GREGORY, ET AL. V. BESHEAR, GOV. OF KY, ET AL.

    The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:

    1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

    2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

    ---

    "The Court said it would rule on the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state...Although the Court said explicitly that it was limiting review to the two basic issues, along the way the Justices may have to consider what constitutional tests they are going to apply to state bans, and what weight to give to policies that states will claim to justify one or the other of the bans." - Sixth Circuit Now a split on same-sex marriage SCOTUSblog

    Hmm... I wonder if the Court will hear any of the crazy arguments we hear online and in the media? :lol:


    Gay Marriage Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review in Landmark Case


    Both sides urged the Supreme Court to resolve a disagreement among the lower courts...The justices will be reviewing the sole appellate ruling that said states could restrict marriage to heterosexual unions, a decision that applied to Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio.

    ‘Customary’ Processes
    In the case before the justices, Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said changes to marriage laws should come from “the customary political processes,” not through the courts.

    “When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers,” Sutton wrote in a 2-1 decision.

    Gay-marriage advocates say the Constitution protects a fundamental right to wed and bars same-sex couples from being treated differently than heterosexual people.

    Gays are being denied “the fundamental freedom and equal right to marry, and their families are deprived of the status, dignity, security and stability that marriage brings,” April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse argued in their appeal in the Michigan case. The two are nurses who have adopted three children, including two with special needs.

    State Voters
    Michigan Governor Richard Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette argued in court papers that “marriage is an issue left to voters at the state level.”

    The Supreme Court hinted at support for gay marriage in a 2013 ruling that struck down part of a law that denied federal benefits for same-sex spouses.

    Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Constitution protects gay couples’ “moral and sexual choices.” He rejected many of the justifications for treating gay unions differently from heterosexual ones.

    The ruling created a broad sense that it was only a matter of time before the Supreme Court went the final step. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia said an eventual ruling legalizing gay marriage was “inevitable.”

    The Supreme Court has reinforced that perception by letting court orders requiring gay marriage take effect. In the most significant move, the justices in October let stand three federal appeals court decisions, leading to marriage in 11 new states.


    ...​
     
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    It will be interesting to come back here later this year and see if any of the arguments used here are used in the Court and see what the Justices actually say about any and all of the arguments presented.

    Constitutional issues of this magnitude are historical by nature. This is one for the history books
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    UC-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen found the first question “odd” because it focused on state powers and obligations rather than individual rights, which ”perhaps keeps the court from getting into questions about heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination.” Harvard law professor Larry Tribe suggested that the reframed questions “technically leave open a middle path along which the court would prevent states from discriminating against same-sex couples lawfully married in their home states without requiring any state to take the affirmative step of issuing its own marriage licenses to same-sex couples.” (In my initial reaction to the cert grant, I speculated on the same compromise possibility but ultimately concluded that this was less likely than a clean win for the challengers on both questions.)​
    Law & Regulation 1/17/2015 @ 2:58PM
    Ilya Shapiro Contributor

    Did Supreme Court Telegraph Its Ultimate Ruling On Gay Marriage?


    Now, that understanding necessarily worries some observers. Hasen is concerned that the Court “leaves open the possibility that states could get out of the marriage business entirely. This perhaps takes away issues related to the due process rights of same sex couples.” Cornell law professor Michael Dorf echoes that sentiment, noting that ”one might think that the answer to both questions is no, so long as the state doesn’t license or recognize any marriages, same-sex or opposite-sex.” But these worries, as Dorf goes on to say, are academic, given that all states do issue marriage licenses (and recognize marriages from other states and foreign countries).

    Indeed, as the marriage debate has progressed, I’ve been disappointed that not a single state — not Utah or Mississippi or Oklahoma, or any other conservative exemplar — ever passed a law saying that if a court strikes down its denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it’ll get out of the marriage business altogether. That’s too bad from the perspective of someone who thinks that marriage is yet another area of policy government should exit — as well as someone who likes seeing federalism in action – but it really makes the Supreme Court’s job quite easy.​
     

Share This Page