Judge looking at Mich. gay marriage ban

Judge looking at Mich. gay marriage ban

There are 43 comments on the ClickOnDetroit story from Mar 6, 2013, titled Judge looking at Mich. gay marriage ban. In it, ClickOnDetroit reports that:

A lesbian couple's desire to adopt each other's children has grown into a potentially groundbreaking challenge to Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ClickOnDetroit.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Mar 6, 2013
Intersting case.

The judge originally dismissed the case because they were only challenging our ban on same-sex couples adopting. He then suggested the couple should refile their case challenging BOTH the adoption ban AND the marriage ban.

Makes me think he's itching to overturn the marriage ban.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2 Mar 6, 2013
Agreed. Most judges would probably prefer avoidance.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#3 Mar 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Intersting case.
The judge originally dismissed the case because they were only challenging our ban on same-sex couples adopting. He then suggested the couple should refile their case challenging BOTH the adoption ban AND the marriage ban.
Makes me think he's itching to overturn the marriage ban.
I am SO curious about this case! Why have we heard so little about it?? And isn't it REALLY odd for a judge to make such a suggestion? It certainly is interesting.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#4 Mar 6, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I am SO curious about this case! Why have we heard so little about it?? And isn't it REALLY odd for a judge to make such a suggestion? It certainly is interesting.
Maybe I'm stretching things, but a lot of people's attitudes change when they have a LGBT member in their family. The judge has 2 children and 4 grandchildren. Maybe one of his family members is tugging at his heart strings.

Remember super wealthy hedge fund CEO, Republican Paul Singer, supporter of all things Republican (including George W. Bush), set up a PAC in support of marriage equality in NY. He has a gay son.

But, this is just conjecture on my part. It is an interesting suggestion by the judge.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Mar 6, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I am SO curious about this case! Why have we heard so little about it?? And isn't it REALLY odd for a judge to make such a suggestion? It certainly is interesting.
I could be he simply didn't want them to waste their time on a adoption case he knew they would probably lose because of the marriage ban.

Without being able to argue you're in a committed relationship, you don't have much standing to argue for a constitutional right to co-adopt.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#6 Mar 6, 2013
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#7 Mar 6, 2013
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)(plurality):“[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):“[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Mar 6, 2013
It's an interesting argument and a pretty neat end run around Baker v Nelson. The couple's original claim, the adoption law violated their equal protection rights was a non-starter, because there is no right to adopt. Now if the reason why they are unmarried and unable to adopt jointly, the marriage ban, is itself unconstitutional, problem solved.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Sometimes I could just kiss you !!!

Excellent!
Joe Smith

Montréal, Canada

#10 Mar 7, 2013
I don't understand why Christians are against gay marriage.
Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Mar 7, 2013
The case is on hold until the SCOTUS rules on DOMA & Prop 8.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Mar 7, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The case is on hold until the SCOTUS rules on DOMA & Prop 8.
What do you mean?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#13 Mar 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean?
I mean the case is on hold until the SCOTUS rules on DOMA & Prop 8.

What part of that confused you?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Mar 7, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean the case is on hold until the SCOTUS rules on DOMA & Prop 8.
What part of that confused you?
OK. Wide open questions don't work when you are in this mood.

Who put the case "on hold"?

When was the case put "on hold"?

How was the case put "on hold"?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Mar 7, 2013
On a postive note, reports are the MN House & Senate committees have enough votes to pass their marriage bill out of committee and to the full House & Senate when they vote next Tues.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Mar 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Wide open questions don't work when you are in this mood.
Who put the case "on hold"?
When was the case put "on hold"?
How was the case put "on hold"?
Not being snarky; I just didn't think it was that ambiguous of a statement.

The judge hearing the case (US District Judge Bernard Friedman) put the case on hold today (Thursday) by saying he's putting the case on hold (won't issue a ruling) until the SCOTUS rules on DOMA & Prop 8.

Okay, maybe that WAS a bit snarky this time!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Mar 7, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Not being snarky; I just didn't think it was that ambiguous of a statement.
The judge hearing the case (US District Judge Bernard Friedman) put the case on hold today (Thursday) by saying he's putting the case on hold (won't issue a ruling) until the SCOTUS rules on DOMA & Prop 8.
Okay, maybe that WAS a bit snarky this time!
Not "snarky" at all. CLEAR.

Interesting ploy by the Judge.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#19 Mar 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>Not "snarky" at all. CLEAR.

Interesting ploy by the Judge.
"Ploy"?? He simply realizes, and rightly so, that whatever the Scotus rules in June-ish will very likely have a direct effect on his ruling in those case. How is that a "ploy"?

If the Scotus rules that same-sex couple have a constitutional right to marriage equality, this judge doesn't have to rule at all. If decide the states can practice all the hate and abuse they want to on law-abiding citizens, he'll have to decide if that's okay in Michigan or not.

See how easy?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#20 Mar 7, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ploy"?? He simply realizes, and rightly so, that whatever the Scotus rules in June-ish will very likely have a direct effect on his ruling in those case. How is that a "ploy"?
If the Scotus rules that same-sex couple have a constitutional right to marriage equality, this judge doesn't have to rule at all. If decide the states can practice all the hate and abuse they want to on law-abiding citizens, he'll have to decide if that's okay in Michigan or not.
See how easy?
Isn't this the SAME Judge that counseled them to add the Marriage to their Petition?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Mar 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't this the SAME Judge that counseled them to add the Marriage to their Petition?
Yep, that's the one. I do find it odd that he would enourage them to challenge the marraige ban but then turn around and put it on hold.

It's odd alright.

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
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 2 min Rose_NoHo 59
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 26 min Frankie Rizzo 15,942
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 29 min Fa-Foxy 469
News Trump donates $100k to anti-LGBT Pastor 1 hr The Boss 8
News Women and the LGBT Community Are Natural Allies 1 hr Fa-Foxy 2
A question for NE Jade 1 hr Gryph 3
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 1 hr Skippy 14
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Nigel 38,779
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 2 hr Rainbow Kid 199
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,966
More from around the web