Couple challenging Michigan gay marriage ban 'entitled to their day in court,' judge rules

Jul 1, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.mlive.com

Citing last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a federal judge on Monday ruled that a Hazel Park couple's challenge against Michigan's same-sex marriage ban should go to trial.

Comments
1 - 20 of 43 Comments Last updated Jul 10, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

fingers crossed....

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 2, 2013
 
I think they got a good shot at this.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Gator Bait wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, d!cks crossed don't you?
Nope. But if you've got a different tradition where you come from, by all means, go for it.

“Greetings!”

Since: Dec 06

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I'm thinking this is just the first of 33 more cases to be brought before State courts where they have an anti-gay marriage amendment in place.

The SCOTUS ruling IS now LEGAL PRECEDENT and, if the SCOTUS says that prohibiting gay marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution - rest assured, state Supreme Courts will be hard pressed to ignore such a precedent.

I think you'll also see many motions for SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - which would avoid long and costly litigation!

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 2, 2013
 
TampaBob wrote:
I'm thinking this is just the first of 33 more cases to be brought before State courts where they have an anti-gay marriage amendment in place.
The SCOTUS ruling IS now LEGAL PRECEDENT and, if the SCOTUS says that prohibiting gay marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution - rest assured, state Supreme Courts will be hard pressed to ignore such a precedent.
I think you'll also see many motions for SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - which would avoid long and costly litigation!
I agree.

Is Tampa HOT ?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

TampaBob wrote:
I'm thinking this is just the first of 33 more cases to be brought before State courts where they have an anti-gay marriage amendment in place.
The SCOTUS ruling IS now LEGAL PRECEDENT and, if the SCOTUS says that prohibiting gay marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution - rest assured, state Supreme Courts will be hard pressed to ignore such a precedent.
I think you'll also see many motions for SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - which would avoid long and costly litigation!
Just so you know, DeBoer is heading to federal court and the fact that it is is the next death knell for the case of Baker v Nelson. Based on the precedent set in that case, this one should have been dismissed, not given its day in Court, until the Supremes say otherwise, there is no federal interest in it. Judge Friedman has just thumbed his nose at the only thing left standing between us and full equality. The case that castrated us for being 40 years ahead of its time.

The anti-equality folk must be in serious disarray on this one, they should be screaming bloody murder at this point. In boxing terms, this one was both below the belt and obviously intentional and it just had to hurt.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 2, 2013
 
If memory serves, this is the judge that advised the plaintiffs to refile their case to include Michigan's DOMA amendment and they'd have a stronger case.

Honestly, I still don't quite get the legal nuances of why this case is so strong, but I'm delighted that it is and I'm even more delighted that it's in Michigan (where I live).

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 2, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
If memory serves, this is the judge that advised the plaintiffs to refile their case to include Michigan's DOMA amendment and they'd have a stronger case.
Honestly, I still don't quite get the legal nuances of why this case is so strong, but I'm delighted that it is and I'm even more delighted that it's in Michigan (where I live).
Their lawsuit was originally against Michigan's second parent adoption law. In any unmarried couple, only one is legally permitted to adopt, this applies to couples regardless of their gender make-up. This suit had one fundamental weakness, the federal courts do not recognize a right to become an adoptive parent and what the states say is what the states get to do, unless federal laws are being broken. However, if they were to challenge the law which prevented them from being a married couple able to adopt together, that would in turn relieve any equal protection problems that the underlying adoption law probably has, but not his job to sort out.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 2, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Their lawsuit was originally against Michigan's second parent adoption law. In any unmarried couple, only one is legally permitted to adopt, this applies to couples regardless of their gender make-up. This suit had one fundamental weakness, the federal courts do not recognize a right to become an adoptive parent and what the states say is what the states get to do, unless federal laws are being broken. However, if they were to challenge the law which prevented them from being a married couple able to adopt together, that would in turn relieve any equal protection problems that the underlying adoption law probably has, but not his job to sort out.
So when do you think they will decide to FULLY HOMOSEXUALIZE Michigan ?

:)

<s>

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 3, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Their lawsuit was originally against Michigan's second parent adoption law. In any unmarried couple, only one is legally permitted to adopt, this applies to couples regardless of their gender make-up. This suit had one fundamental weakness, the federal courts do not recognize a right to become an adoptive parent and what the states say is what the states get to do, unless federal laws are being broken. However, if they were to challenge the law which prevented them from being a married couple able to adopt together, that would in turn relieve any equal protection problems that the underlying adoption law probably has, but not his job to sort out.
That makes a lot more sense. It sounds like there IS a Federal question regarding the equal protection over the fact that they are banned from marrying (especially now) and THAT being the reason they are not allowed to co-adopt, but there aren't any issues regarding the adoption law because that's very much a state issue.

So, if this lawsuit is successful in overturning Michigan's DOMA amendment, it'll basically be because the bigots pushed through the law banning unmarried couples from adopting (because our DOMA didn't hurt gay families quite enough).

I remember when that law was pushed through because the family at the center of it are friends of mine. It was absolutely based in anti-gay animus after a (gasp!!) Lesbian was allowed to (OH NO!!!!) adopt the biological children (twins) of her partner. The screaming and panicking and running in circles frantically flailing of arms about was unbelievable. You would have thought the court had ordered the two children be slowly tortured to death instead of being adopted by loving parents. The hate-mongers were in high gear!

So it would be AWESOME if that's the reason our DOMA got overturned. I can't think of a better reason to do it than the hate mongers went too far, even for hate mongers.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 3, 2013
 
eJohn wrote:
That makes a lot more sense. It sounds like there IS a Federal question regarding the equal protection over the fact that they are banned from marrying (especially now) and THAT being the reason they are not allowed to co-adopt, but there aren't any issues regarding the adoption law because that's very much a state issue.
So, if this lawsuit is successful in overturning Michigan's DOMA amendment, it'll basically be because the bigots pushed through the law banning unmarried couples from adopting (because our DOMA didn't hurt gay families quite enough).
I remember when that law was pushed through because the family at the center of it are friends of mine. It was absolutely based in anti-gay animus after a (gasp!!) Lesbian was allowed to (OH NO!!!!) adopt the biological children (twins) of her partner. The screaming and panicking and running in circles frantically flailing of arms about was unbelievable. You would have thought the court had ordered the two children be slowly tortured to death instead of being adopted by loving parents. The hate-mongers were in high gear!
So it would be AWESOME if that's the reason our DOMA got overturned. I can't think of a better reason to do it than the hate mongers went too far, even for hate mongers.
The adoption issue is what is getting them around the Baker case, which would have shown them the door if they had just gone after the marriage law. Any state which prohibits second parent adoption AND same sex marriage has got to worry. Most of the laws against second parent adoptions pre-date the marriage issue, they wanted to discourage unmarried couples from adopting because of the legal havoc that can happen when your parents aren't related. Same sex couples made these laws a problem that they didn't intend.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 8, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The adoption issue is what is getting them around the Baker case, which would have shown them the door if they had just gone after the marriage law. Any state which prohibits second parent adoption AND same sex marriage has got to worry. Most of the laws against second parent adoptions pre-date the marriage issue, they wanted to discourage unmarried couples from adopting because of the legal havoc that can happen when your parents aren't related. Same sex couples made these laws a problem that they didn't intend.
I actually see the sense in not allowing unmarried couples to jointly adopt. Committing to a civil marriage license is a far lessor commitment than adopting a child is so it makes perfect sense that if the couple didn't want to commit to a civil marriage, why would they believe adopting a child together makes any sense?

Except, of course, in cases where the couple would be perfectly happy to marry, but the bigots and the state stand in their way.

This could be another huge win for equality, couldn't it?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
I actually see the sense in not allowing unmarried couples to jointly adopt. Committing to a civil marriage license is a far lessor commitment than adopting a child is so it makes perfect sense that if the couple didn't want to commit to a civil marriage, why would they believe adopting a child together makes any sense?
Except, of course, in cases where the couple would be perfectly happy to marry, but the bigots and the state stand in their way.
This could be another huge win for equality, couldn't it?
It is actually still illegal for unmarried people of the opposite sex to cohabit with one another in Michigan and that's where the law on second parent adoptions stem from. Since that law would not apply to a same sex couple, the only thing preventing them from adopting together is the marriage law. This case and the one against New Jersey's civil union scheme are currently in a race to the Supremes to overturn the ruling in Baker v Nelson.
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 8, 2013
 
Gays are far less committed in relationships, and often "flake" out of it.

The reason gays want marriage rights, is so they too can have shared insurance benefits, tax benefits and any other benefit that comes with the commitment of traditional marriage.

The problem is, this issue will create additional burdens on tax payers, all so gays can "feel" legitimized in their sexual activities.

Being gay IS NOT a choice, we get that...but at the same time, same-sex sex is NOT natural, rather something that simply has to be "dealt" with.

And before anyone gets all butthurt over that, you have to look at science which shows us, the parts don't fit properly!
Number one reason why procreation is not possible in a same-sex sexual encounter.

If the world was all gay men for example, the world would cease to exist in about 40 to 60 years.

Gay partnerships is no big deal, getting married (or going through the pretend motions of marriage) is cool too...crossing the line comes with expecting to be treated like a natural, normal, male/female committed marriage and receiving the benefits afforded to "that" level of commitment!

And trust me...none of what I am saying is based around religion (or emotion)...its strictly on the science.
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 8, 2013
 
Homosexuality is a flaw in the design/engineering of the machine that are humans!
Accepting that "flaw" as normal, is not acceptable to most!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TruthBeTold wrote:
(nothing worth repeating)
Hon, it isn't our fault that you aren't evidently bright enough to figure out how sex works, so any issues you have with our sex lives, your problem, not ours.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 8, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It is actually still illegal for unmarried people of the opposite sex to cohabit with one another in Michigan and that's where the law on second parent adoptions stem from. Since that law would not apply to a same sex couple, the only thing preventing them from adopting together is the marriage law. This case and the one against New Jersey's civil union scheme are currently in a race to the Supremes to overturn the ruling in Baker v Nelson.
Do you think they'll get to the SCOTUS? I'm wondering if they'll get decided at the state level and not go any higher, especially since the hate-mongers might be smart enough to stop pushing cases toward the Supreme now....

But then, hate-mongers aren't known for their intelligence, are they?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jul 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
Do you think they'll get to the SCOTUS? I'm wondering if they'll get decided at the state level and not go any higher, especially since the hate-mongers might be smart enough to stop pushing cases toward the Supreme now....
But then, hate-mongers aren't known for their intelligence, are they?
Michigan's case is in federal court at the trial level and while New Jersey's is in state court, they have been allowed by the Judge to claim that the civil unions violate not only the state Constitution, but the federal one as well. Any decision based on those issues by the state Supreme Court are appeal-able directly to SCOTUS.
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jul 9, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Hon, it isn't our fault that you aren't evidently bright enough to figure out how sex works, so any issues you have with our sex lives, your problem, not ours.
If you cant naturally procreate, then you are destine to perish.
Laws of science...hon!

Denial and failure to accept facts and reality, only hurt your case!
TruthBeTold

Farmington, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jul 9, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Hon, it isn't our fault that you aren't evidently bright enough to figure out how sex works, so any issues you have with our sex lives, your problem, not ours.
And truly...it isn't my fault that you aren't evidently bright enough to figure out the reason species mate!

More specifically...getting your nut off is not what a marriage is, its just a good time...so why do you need a paper to have a good time?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••