Federal Judge Could Overturn Michigan...

Federal Judge Could Overturn Michigan's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage This Thursday:

There are 23 comments on the www.towleroad.com story from Mar 4, 2013, titled Federal Judge Could Overturn Michigan's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage This Thursday: . In it, www.towleroad.com reports that:

Back in September I posted about April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a Detroit couple suing the state of Michigan over its ban on gay adoption, who expanded their lawsuit to take on the state's marriage amendment.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.towleroad.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#22 Mar 7, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, THIS is what is baffling me. Why isn't this just as simple as the adoption law requiring two people be married in order to adopt jointly being struck down as the equal treatment violation?
Granted, it makes sense that a couple filing for joint adoption should be legally married. If you can't commit to legally marrying, why can you commit to jointly raising a child?
But the reason this law was put in place in Michigan (I was here and I remember it well) was *specifically* to stop gay couples from jointly adopting in Michigan. The two women who's joint adoption (it was a second-parent adoption, actually) sparked the idiot panic that got this law adopted are old friends of mine. I used to work with one of them years ago.
So maybe that's why I'm finding the inclusion of the marriage issue so baffling here--because I know that the adoption law ALSO has one and only one purpose behind it--to disadvantage gay couples and their families. So it seems odd to me that dragging in yet another anti-gay law would make a difference when the first one is also just as anti-gay as the second.
This case is walking a very fine tightrope between two areas where technically they have no rights whatsoever. There is no right to be an adoptive parent, unless the state is engaging in suspect classification, you are s.o.o.l. in the courts, gay or straight. The law simply states that you have to be married in order to adopt jointly, that applies to couples of both the same and opposite sex. Marital status isn't considered a suspect classification. Opposite sex couples in this equation almost always have the option of marrying and if they don't, it's highly unlikely they'd be considered good adoptive parent material in the first place. As we know same sex couples do not. There is no federal right to marry someone of your same sex, it isn't even a federal question. He turned no right to adopt and no right to marry into the question of whether qualified adoptive parents of the same sex have the right to be married.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#23 Mar 7, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>This case is walking a very fine tightrope between two areas where technically they have no rights whatsoever. There is no right to be an adoptive parent, unless the state is engaging in suspect classification, you are s.o.o.l. in the courts, gay or straight. The law simply states that you have to be married in order to adopt jointly, that applies to couples of both the same and opposite sex. Marital status isn't considered a suspect classification. Opposite sex couples in this equation almost always have the option of marrying and if they don't, it's highly unlikely they'd be considered good adoptive parent material in the first place. As we know same sex couples do not. There is no federal right to marry someone of your same sex, it isn't even a federal question. He turned no right to adopt and no right to marry into the question of whether qualified adoptive parents of the same sex have the right to be married.
Interesting.... Thanks for discussing this with me. I'm still not totally clear on why it all works, but it's going to be interesting, no matter what happens.

And I'm not surprised he put the case on hold until the Scotus decision in June. Why should he rule if he might not have to?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#24 Mar 7, 2013
eJohn wrote:
Interesting.... Thanks for discussing this with me. I'm still not totally clear on why it all works, but it's going to be interesting, no matter what happens.
And I'm not surprised he put the case on hold until the Scotus decision in June. Why should he rule if he might not have to?
You're welcome, it's rare to have an actual discussion around here.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

River Rouge Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Slick Cups Announces A Sale To Celebrate Nation... 5 hr Kevn 1
Black eradication 6 hr The Black Avenger 2
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Thu Mother Mcreeeeee 20,096
GANGSTALKED IN DETROIT: A must read! infiltrati... Thu reality is a crutch 14
Dwan Sims missing 4yr old 1994 cold case doesn'... (Jul '09) Thu Meanie 126
Review: Detroit Police Department NON-Emergency... (May '14) Wed Michael S 6
News 18-year-old Detroit man shot over $400 Nike Air... (Dec '12) Tue Kelly 15
More from around the web

Personal Finance

River Rouge Mortgages