Michigan's gay marriage ban struck down

[Nyvin]

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage

DETROIT — In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, a federal judge Friday struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony just like their heterosexual counterparts.

That makes six different states with court rulings against gay marriage bans. Ironically Michigan is probably the most liberal of the bunch. It puts huge pressure on the Supreme Court to act on all these rulings. I'd say by the end of next year we're going to see national gay marriage.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

 

[The Rabbi]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Isn't research, infrastructure and education beneficial to our country?

 

[The Rabbi]

Isn't research, infrastructure and education beneficial to our country?

So is mom and apple pie You want the gov't to supply those as well?

 

[bodecea]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

People voted for gun bans in the past too. People voted for Jim Crow laws in the past too. Doesn't make them any more Constitutional.

 

[Plasmaball]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

someday when you grow up you will learn that you cant vote to take someones rights away.
Anyways you are loosing and that makes me happy.

 

[Katzndogz]

The court may impose it but they can't make the people accept it. They will just take more direct action.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From the ruling:

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its
implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF

Fundamental, accepted, and settled 14th Amendment jurisprudence: states may not deny American citizens access to state laws, including gay Americans access to marriage law.

And every Federal court will follow this established precedent, including the Supreme Court.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay Marriage - All over but the shoutin', from the right-winger homophobes.

 

[SillyWabbit]

The court may impose it but they can't make the people accept it. They will just take more direct action.

Exactly what "more direct action" can "the people" take?

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

Ignorant nonsense.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the invalidated amendment to the Michigan constitution is proof of that.

One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and the majority lacks the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil rights.

The issue has nothing to do with the ‘10th Amendment,’ as that Amendment has never codified the doctrine you state, where Federal laws, the Federal Constitution and its case law, and rulings by Federal courts are in fact supreme to the laws and measures of the states and local jurisdictions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage

DETROIT — In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, a federal judge Friday struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony just like their heterosexual counterparts.

That makes six different states with court rulings against gay marriage. Ironically Michigan is probably the most liberal of the bunch. It puts huge pressure on the Supreme Court to act on all these rulings. I'd say by the end of next year we're going to see national gay marriage.

Striking down a BAN on gay marriage is one thing, because clearly some of the citizens don't believe in banning this.

The same logic should apply with NOT forcing gay marriage through the state, for the same reason, that not all the citizens in that state agree to recognize it.

Because religious beliefs are involved, the state should neither be used to impose nor ban "gay marriage."
If state policy is going to reflect the people of that state without religious bias, then the laws should be worded to satisfy and represent all of them by consensus.
Or else not have any laws at all on this issue. that would compel people to write better laws to avoid conflicts they can't agree how to resolve.

Look at the Second Amendment for example. When it was written, people had differences we see today over what it meant and how they intended to apply it.
Yet the same "wording" allows for all these different interpretations, some conflicting or opposed to each other.

The laws should be written to be neutral, where neither side feels imposed upon by beliefs they don't agree with, or left out where they can't use the law equally for their purposes.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Gay Marriage - All over but the shoutin', from the right-winger homophobes.

Where are the Unions?

 

[The Rabbi]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

People voted for gun bans in the past too. People voted for Jim Crow laws in the past too. Doesn't make them any more Constitutional.

Gun bans run afoul of the 2A.
Nothing unconstitutional about Jim Crow.

 

[emilynghiem]

Gay Marriage - All over but the shoutin', from the right-winger homophobes.

Don't forget the Constitutionalists who believe in including and protecting
equal rights to believe or not believe in gay marriage without imposition by the state.

Don't leave us out just because we DON'T vocally "shout or hate" anyone
but respect the beliefs of BOTH sides as equally protected under the Constitution.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage

DETROIT — In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, a federal judge Friday struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony just like their heterosexual counterparts.

That makes six different states with court rulings against gay marriage. Ironically Michigan is probably the most liberal of the bunch. It puts huge pressure on the Supreme Court to act on all these rulings. I'd say by the end of next year we're going to see national gay marriage.

Striking down a BAN on gay marriage is one thing, because clearly some of the citizens don't believe in banning this.

The same logic should apply with NOT forcing gay marriage through the state, for the same reason, that not all the citizens in that state agree to recognize it.

Because religious beliefs are involved, the state should neither be used to impose nor ban "gay marriage."
If state policy is going to reflect the people of that state without religious bias, then the laws should be worded to satisfy and represent all of them by consensus.
Or else not have any laws at all on this issue. that would compel people to write better laws to avoid conflicts they can't agree how to resolve.

Look at the Second Amendment for example. When it was written, people had differences we see today over what it meant and how they intended to apply it.
Yet the same "wording" allows for all these different interpretations, some conflicting or opposed to each other.

The laws should be written to be neutral, where neither side feels imposed upon by beliefs they don't agree with, or left out where they can't use the law equally for their purposes.

I would be completely fine with the state calling gay and straight marriages civil unions as long as the rights and benefits for both were the same. Then let the churches alone be able to declare something a marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The court may impose it but they can't make the people accept it. They will just take more direct action.

Ridiculous.

The court isn’t ‘imposing’ anything on anyone.

The 14th Amendment applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private persons or organizations; you and others on the right remain at liberty to hate gay Americans.

 

[The Rabbi]

Another win for smaller government and freedom!

No, idiot. People voted for that ban. People in the state voted to establish a state standard of marriage. The 10th Amendment allows them to do just that. Now we have unelected judges defying the clear will of the people. That is not freedom but tyranny. But in good news many of those gays will get to work on research, infreastructure and education.

Ignorant nonsense.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; the invalidated amendment to the Michigan constitution is proof of that.

One’s civil liberties are not subject to majority rule, and the majority lacks the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil rights.

The issue has nothing to do with the ‘10th Amendment,’ as that Amendment has never codified the doctrine you state, where Federal laws, the Federal Constitution and its case law, and rulings by Federal courts are in fact supreme to the laws and measures of the states and local jurisdictions.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

The Constitution is mute on marriage. Thus by default that power is left to the state, or the people. This is basic ConLaw. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Where people have voted, that is the consent of the governed. Some vague wording in the 14th A does not negate that arrangement.
As it is, gays are not denied anything. Any more than married people are denied anything. Or single people are denied anything. Or non-farmers are denied anything.