Mich. gay marriage appeal will follow usual track

Apr 29, 2014 Full story: WJRT 54

The court says the state's appeal of a decision overturning a ban on same-sex marriage will follow the usual course.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Apr 29, 2014
SCOTUS will decide this question once and for all when they decide they want to.
Joe

Oklahoma City, OK

#2 Apr 29, 2014
The judge in the case said the state had not offered compelling evidence that same sex marriages should not be allowed. In my view, it is not the state's responsibility to justify its laws to a federal judge. According to the Eerie Doctrine (a 1938 Supreme Court case), the federal government can't interfere in or dictate state laws unless there is a federal supremacy issue. The gay case is rooted in equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment and due process provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments, neither of which apply. The equal protection clause does not provide protections for individuals or groups; it demands equal application of the law. Where states ban same gender marriage, it is still legal for homosexuals to marry if they marry a person of the opposite gender, so marriage is not being denied them. They have all the equality applied to the rest of us normal people. Due process means the state cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law. States deprive citizens of all three all the time, because the process is codified in law. Thus, if a prohibition against same sex marriage is codified in law, that is all that is required of due process. By the way, the term "gay rights" is a fraudulent name. Not one word in the constitution confers rights of any kind upon anybody anywhere based on their sexual practices. Not even a syllable!
Freedom Justice for All

Fontana, CA

#3 Apr 29, 2014
States cannot pass any law they want if any law violates or intervenes Federal law or US Constitution. It is a duty of the Federal Judge to stop any state from passing any law that deprives its citizens equal right to treatment whether its citizens are gays or straights. What law will be passed by a state to violates the next US Citizens, if the Federal Judge ignores Federal law or US Constitution by not intervening.
Freedom and Justice for All US Citizens.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#4 Apr 29, 2014
Joe wrote:
The judge in the case said the state had not offered compelling evidence that same sex marriages should not be allowed. In my view, it is not the state's responsibility to justify its laws to a federal judge. According to the Eerie Doctrine (a 1938 Supreme Court case), the federal government can't interfere in or dictate state laws unless there is a federal supremacy issue. The gay case is rooted in equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment and due process provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments, neither of which apply. The equal protection clause does not provide protections for individuals or groups; it demands equal application of the law. Where states ban same gender marriage, it is still legal for homosexuals to marry if they marry a person of the opposite gender, so marriage is not being denied them. They have all the equality applied to the rest of us normal people. Due process means the state cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law. States deprive citizens of all three all the time, because the process is codified in law. Thus, if a prohibition against same sex marriage is codified in law, that is all that is required of due process. By the way, the term "gay rights" is a fraudulent name. Not one word in the constitution confers rights of any kind upon anybody anywhere based on their sexual practices. Not even a syllable!
Good luck with all that.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#5 Apr 29, 2014
Joe wrote:
The judge in the case said the state had not offered compelling evidence that same sex marriages should not be allowed. In my view, it is not the state's responsibility to justify its laws to a federal judge. According to the Eerie Doctrine (a 1938 Supreme Court case), the federal government can't interfere in or dictate state laws unless there is a federal supremacy issue. The gay case is rooted in equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment and due process provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments, neither of which apply. The equal protection clause does not provide protections for individuals or groups; it demands equal application of the law. Where states ban same gender marriage, it is still legal for homosexuals to marry if they marry a person of the opposite gender, so marriage is not being denied them. They have all the equality applied to the rest of us normal people. Due process means the state cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law. States deprive citizens of all three all the time, because the process is codified in law. Thus, if a prohibition against same sex marriage is codified in law, that is all that is required of due process. By the way, the term "gay rights" is a fraudulent name. Not one word in the constitution confers rights of any kind upon anybody anywhere based on their sexual practices. Not even a syllable!
Using your extremely twisted and uninformed "logic", slavery was okay since laws regarding slavery applied equally to all slaves and laws regarding free people applied equally to all free people. And laws banning a woman's right to vote was okay since they applied to all women equally. Really????

The bottom line is simple. My heterosexual brother can legally marry the unrelated consenting adult of his choice. I cannot. That's a clear violation of the 14th Amendment that guarantees me equal protections under the law. His spouse gets all the legal protections of marriage, mine does not. That's not equal.

The rest of your post is just you being uninformed about both the constitution and the legal process. You need to do some more research and get back with us later when you have some idea of what you're talking about.
MaK227

Nottingham, MD

#6 Apr 29, 2014
Joe wrote:
The judge in the case said the state had not offered compelling evidence that same sex marriages should not be allowed. In my view, it is not the state's responsibility to justify its laws to a federal judge. According to the Eerie Doctrine (a 1938 Supreme Court case), the federal government can't interfere in or dictate state laws unless there is a federal supremacy issue.[/quote]

The defense doesn't have to say anything, but it should or else the parties bringing the action will win with a prima facie case.

[quote]Where states ban same gender marriage, it is still legal for homosexuals to marry if they marry a person of the opposite gender, so marriage is not being denied them. They have all the equality applied to the rest of us normal people.[/quote]

That's not equality to marry the person you are attracted to, and to do otherwise would not be a meaningful marriage at all.

[quote]Due process means the state cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law. States deprive citizens of all three all the time, because the process is codified in law. Thus, if a prohibition against same sex marriage is codified in law, that is all that is required of due process.[/quote]

Wrong. Due process includes common law rights, not just those defined by statute, and due process can rise out of the constitution. Thus, a common law right in the constitution can strike down a statute prohibition.

[quote]By the way, the term "gay rights" is a fraudulent name. Not one word in the constitution confers rights of any kind upon anybody anywhere based on their sexual practices. Not even a syllable!
It doesn't have to. The 14th Amendment is purposefully broad. No law can be applied unequally. Additionally, the 9th Amendment confers rights to citizens that aren't stated explicitly by the Constitution. We also do not operate in a civil law system like most of the world does. We operate by common law, which allows judges broad power to determine what is due process and equal rights. Be glad that we have such a system, because everyone has benefited from court rulings in one form or another over the last two centuries. It is why America is freer than so much of the world.
Larry

Mesquite, TX

#7 Apr 29, 2014
Joe wrote:
The judge in the case said the state had not offered compelling evidence that same sex marriages should not be allowed. In my view, it is not the state's responsibility to justify its laws to a federal judge. According to the Eerie Doctrine (a 1938 Supreme Court case), the federal government can't interfere in or dictate state laws unless there is a federal supremacy issue. The gay case is rooted in equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment and due process provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments, neither of which apply. The equal protection clause does not provide protections for individuals or groups; it demands equal application of the law. Where states ban same gender marriage, it is still legal for homosexuals to marry if they marry a person of the opposite gender, so marriage is not being denied them. They have all the equality applied to the rest of us normal people. Due process means the state cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law. States deprive citizens of all three all the time, because the process is codified in law. Thus, if a prohibition against same sex marriage is codified in law, that is all that is required of due process. By the way, the term "gay rights" is a fraudulent name. Not one word in the constitution confers rights of any kind upon anybody anywhere based on their sexual practices. Not even a syllable!
Your State might be the next State to offer same sex marriage. When that happens I will invite you and your family to our wedding. Not stop having a tizzy. Gay marriage is coming to your state and soon.
Samuel Hain

Woodridge, IL

#8 Apr 29, 2014
Homosexual marriage never existed anywhere in history, society-wide. Coincidence?

But ignorant, arrogant 21st century libs think they're know better than everyone who ever lived.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#9 Apr 29, 2014
Joe wrote:
The judge in the case said the state had not offered compelling evidence that same sex marriages should not be allowed. In my view, it is not the state's responsibility to justify its laws to a federal judge. According to the Eerie Doctrine (a 1938 Supreme Court case), the federal government can't interfere in or dictate state laws unless there is a federal supremacy issue. The gay case is rooted in equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment and due process provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments, neither of which apply. The equal protection clause does not provide protections for individuals or groups; it demands equal application of the law. Where states ban same gender marriage, it is still legal for homosexuals to marry if they marry a person of the opposite gender, so marriage is not being denied them. They have all the equality applied to the rest of us normal people. Due process means the state cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law. States deprive citizens of all three all the time, because the process is codified in law. Thus, if a prohibition against same sex marriage is codified in law, that is all that is required of due process. By the way, the term "gay rights" is a fraudulent name. Not one word in the constitution confers rights of any kind upon anybody anywhere based on their sexual practices. Not even a syllable!
Here's the problem with reasoning like yours.

Because the antigay are forced by the courts to find compelling and sensible legal reasons for their prejudice, they are calling upon any of a number of doctrines, clauses, laws and decisions to help -- excuse me, "help" -- their cause.

But if the same logic is used against *the antigay*, they immediately want an exception.

Trust me, it's part of why the antigay are losing in court.

Be very, very careful of the reasoning you "uncover" or even contrive for denying gay couples their rights. It can and WILL be used to turn around and bite the antigay, as I'm sure you know. The *easiest* way to do this is to get over it and give these people their rights, then move on. They do not have the current state-recognized right to receive the advantages accorded to married couples by marrying the person of their *choice*, as anyone here knows you know full well.
Daina Lewis

Southfield, MI

#10 Apr 29, 2014
Every bit of that is offensive! The constitution also doesn't speak of race or gender. Should we then revoke all laws that level equality based upon race or gender as well because it wasn't written in to begin with. OH......HEY.....because they weren't mentioned at all to begin with, guess we should eliminate all the amendments as well because they were not in the original. How about you join the 21st century and realize that ALL people bleed red and NO ONE should be rights that others enjoy and NONE should have legal privilege over another!
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#11 Apr 29, 2014
Samuel Hain wrote:
Homosexual marriage never existed anywhere in history, society-wide. Coincidence?
But ignorant, arrogant 21st century libs think they're know better than everyone who ever lived.
(See above.) The problem with "reasoning" like this is twofold, off the bat:

1. The reality you mention *deliberately ignores* the issues connected with recognition of same-sex partnerships. Inherent in your "take" on the matter is a supposition that it was PROPER or CORRECT to give people those problems. If *you* are handed those problems, you and others like you rage and call life unfair. Thus, the next point is a larger summation of the point made, as an adjunct, herein.

2. If someone were to point out to you, say, that cell phones had never existed until recently, you would deny the connection (no pun etc.). NO COMPARISON is "suitable" to you unless it denies this group their rights. When others point out how many things were not recognized or did not exist until recently, the antigay *ceaselessly* weasel out of the comparison. Trust me, this is part of the reason you're losing in courts. No one antigay can literally, literally come up with *a single reason that this is PRESSING and NECESSARY*-- this denial of rights. The courts do not and will not accept, "I don't like the turn society is taking." They are now summarily and constantly booting those rationales straight out the courthouse doors.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Apr 29, 2014
What would be the advantage to the state of skipping the circuit court panel and going directly to the full court? Are they anxious to get this before SCOTUS so that their ban can be stricken once and for all?

It seems to me that, as long as stays are being issued, delay is our opponents' friend--unless they're afraid that Thomas or Scalia will be replaced by Obama before the case wends its way to SCOTUS.
Cris

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Apr 29, 2014
Samuel Hain wrote:
Homosexual marriage never existed anywhere in history, society-wide. Coincidence?
But ignorant, arrogant 21st century libs think they're know better than everyone who ever lived.
You need a history lesson,gay or same sex marriages were performed over history. Get a clue!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Apr 29, 2014
Samuel Hain wrote:
Homosexual marriage never existed anywhere in history, society-wide. Coincidence?
But ignorant, arrogant 21st century libs think they're know better than everyone who ever lived.
1. You're incorrect.

2. Since a marriage is simply a promise between people to be faithful to one another in all things, why does that promise bother you, and others like you, so much ?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#15 Apr 29, 2014
Samuel Hain wrote:
Homosexual marriage never existed anywhere in history, society-wide. Coincidence?
But ignorant, arrogant 21st century libs think they're know better than everyone who ever lived.
Speaking of ignorance.... you couldn't be more wrong about gay couples never being allowed to marry. MANY civilizations not only recognized but actually CELEBRATED gay couples and their commitments to each other. The Roman Catholic Church even has a special blessing for same-sex couples at their wedding mass.

Many Native American nations have long histories of honoring same-sex couples.

Virtually all the ancient cultures that we know of either honored and recognized gay couples or didn't recognize them, but there's virtually no evidence of antagonism against gay people.
Brian Rufskin

Chicago, IL

#16 Apr 29, 2014
It's interesting how you rely on and refer to Supreme Court doctrines/rulings (e.g., Erie) when it suits the the results you want to reach, but when doctrines/rulings applying the 14th Amendment to the state laws don't favor the result you want (Lawrence, Romer, etc.), then your analysis just pretends that they don't exist. The full gamut of rulings and doctrines is the law whether they make you happy, frustrated, or otherwise, which means that the description of equal protection and due process below is a good starting point for explaining those principles, but it is by no means the full or complete picture, which is more complex and nuanced than described below.
Joe wrote:
The judge in the case said the state had not offered compelling evidence that same sex marriages should not be allowed. In my view, it is not the state's responsibility to justify its laws to a federal judge. According to the Eerie Doctrine (a 1938 Supreme Court case), the federal government can't interfere in or dictate state laws unless there is a federal supremacy issue. The gay case is rooted in equal protection provisions of the 14th amendment and due process provisions of the 5th and 14th amendments, neither of which apply. The equal protection clause does not provide protections for individuals or groups; it demands equal application of the law. Where states ban same gender marriage, it is still legal for homosexuals to marry if they marry a person of the opposite gender, so marriage is not being denied them. They have all the equality applied to the rest of us normal people. Due process means the state cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property without due process of law. States deprive citizens of all three all the time, because the process is codified in law. Thus, if a prohibition against same sex marriage is codified in law, that is all that is required of due process. By the way, the term "gay rights" is a fraudulent name. Not one word in the constitution confers rights of any kind upon anybody anywhere based on their sexual practices. Not even a syllable!
Dr Reker s Bellhop

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Apr 29, 2014
Joe wrote:
The judge in the case said the state had not offered compelling evidence that same sex marriages should not be allowed. In my view, it is not the state's responsibility to justify its laws to a federal judge. According to the Eerie Doctrine....Not even a syllable!
You don't pass the laugh test. Not even a syllable.
Dr Reker s Bellhop

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Apr 29, 2014
Samuel Hain wrote:
Homosexual marriage never existed anywhere in history, society-wide. Coincidence?
But ignorant, arrogant 21st century libs think they're know better than everyone who ever lived.
Thus concludes your sincere argument in favor of slavery, polygamy and women as chattel.

Except you're sexually sick is all.
Homunculus

Edinburgh, UK

#19 Apr 29, 2014
Samuel Hain wrote:
Homosexual marriage never existed anywhere in history, society-wide. Coincidence?
But ignorant, arrogant 21st century libs think they're know better than everyone who ever lived.
Factually incorrect.

The very lands where the laws are being debated permitted same sex marriage. Research two spirit unions in native american tribes. Is it because native american reservations are particularly progressive that several of them have also legalized gay marriage or is there something in their tradition that resonates with them?

Gay marriage has been recorded in the official history of China (Shiji) since the bronze age and went on for close to 2 millenia. In certain dynasties you could scarcely find a heterosexual emperor. Most were bisexual. One even famously passed his throne on to his male partner. In sum there are 10 in chinese history who are considered homosexual. Far more were bisexual. There are even sections with biographies devoted to male consorts, they were not noteworthy for their sexual orientation. That was not even worthy of mention, it was rather how they affected the course of history.

Many African tribes were the same. They integrated gay marriage into their societies. In South Africa, some tribes allowed for rich women to take wives and granted her the privileges of a patriach.

In Rome they banned it when christianity took hold. Various places around old Europe permitted it. There are even records in some long standing parishes in the UK, France, Ireland, Greece which kept records of the early church conducting them. It is not that astounding as the early church even let clergy marry until they became concerned about their divided loyalties and stealing the church wealth. They also inititally assimilated local customs eg. xmas is a pagan festival and not even the bday of jesus.

There are records from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia which testify to same sex marriages.

The history of marriage is long and varied. Trying to use tradition to bolster your argument or claim that same sex marriage is new will not bare fruit.
TonyD

Sharon, PA

#20 Apr 29, 2014
Samuel Hain wrote:
Homosexual marriage never existed anywhere in history, society-wide. Coincidence?
But ignorant, arrogant 21st century libs think they're know better than everyone who ever lived.

Who would know better about culture and the historical context of marriage, you or the actual experts that study this for a living? Let's let the Am. Anthropological Assoc. weigh in:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

Ignorance isn't always bliss. Sometimes it's simply ignorance.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 12 min Frankie Rizzo 936
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 24 min Fa-Foxy 4
N.C. Republican dinged for defending right to f... 29 min Dennis 5
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 32 min KiMare 421
4 couples suing over Montana's gay-marriage ban 44 min cancer suxs 645
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Scott 49,839
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 1 hr Stars and Stripes 1,406
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr Cali Girl 2014 55,924
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 1 hr WeTheSheeple 784
Web filter lifts block on gay sitesWeb filter l... 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 38
Ginsburg: Watch 6th Circuit on gay marriage 7 hr Fa-Foxy 64
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••