Skip to comments.Executive vs. Judiciary: Michigan Governor Refuses to Recognize Gay Marriages Performed in State
Posted on 03/27/2014 8:16:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Michigan's governor has refused to recognize the gay marriage licenses issued after a judge declared the state's ban on same-sex unions unconstitutional.
Gov. Rick Snyder stated that the approximately 300 gay marriages performed last weekend after the decision but before the stay on the decision will not be legally recognized.
Snyder made the announcement Wednesday after an appeals court put a stay on the implementation of the recent ruling by federal Judge Bernard Friedman of Detroit.
"Snyder's announcement Wednesday closes the door to certain benefits granted to Michigan married couples," reported the Associated Press.
"Snyder says the marriages were legal at the time but the stay means the ban now is back in effect It will take months for the appeals court to affirm or reject Friedman's opinion."
In 2004, several states including Michigan passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage by popular referendum.
For Michigan, the specific ballot question was titled Proposal 04-2 and passed with 59 percent of voters approving it.
"Amend the state constitution to provide that 'the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose'," read Proposal 04-2.
According to exit polling data from CNN, Proposal 04-2 received the support of 63 percent of males, 56 percent of females, 60 percent of whites, 59 percent of blacks, and 57 percent of union members.
As with other state level gay marriage bans, this one was taken to court with a challenge to its constitutionality.
Last weekend, Judge Friedman issued a 31-page ruling declaring the constitutional ban in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
"The Court finds that the [ban] impermissibly discriminates against same-sex couples in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the provision does not advance any conceivable legitimate state interest," wrote Friedman.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, called Friedman's decision "an all-out assault on marriage, issuing rulings to redefine this foundational institution in violation of U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the rule of law."
Hundreds of gay couples proceeded to apply for marriage licenses in Michigan during the weekend as State Attorney General Bill Schuette sought a stay against the decision pending an appeal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit eventually granted a temporary stay for the decision as the appeals process continues.
“Justice Jay has had his say, now let him enforce it!”
Good to see an Executive with a pair!
Can he be held in contempt of court? (just wondering... )
Yep, plus WE VOTED on this, so piss off butt-pirates.
If Obama can play that game...why can’t every governor. Its a dangerous precedent that he set.
There are no laws....just men.
ala Andrew Jackson.
This is an incorrect statement. It should read, "Michigan's governor has voided the illegally, improperly modified and issued counterfeit "marriage" licenses dispersed...."
RE: Its a dangerous precedent that he set.
There are no laws....just men.
Not necessarily. The first paragraph of the article tells us:
Michigan’s governor has refused to recognize the gay marriage licenses issued after a judge declared the state’s ban on same-sex unions unconstitutional.
The question is — By what authority does ONE JUDGE determine that he can over-ride the laws or referendum of a state?
What happened to the Tenth Amendment?
Well done Governor!!
Outrageous.. Selective Enforcement of the laws, and Executive Orders overturning will of the people.. How dare he? Wait, WHAT? .. .. :)
Good for the Governor. Need to see more of this.
It’s time for gays to get back in the closet and STAY THERE.
Virginia Minor had argued to the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett that, as a citizen, the Equal Protections Clause of the newly ratified 14th Amendment gave her the right to vote on the basis of her citizenship, regardless of the fact that she was a woman.
However, the Supreme Court decided against Minor, arguing that the 14th Amendment added no new rights to the Constitution, but only strengthened existing protections.
"3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had (emphasis added)." --Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Another way to look at the Equal Protections Clause is the following. At the time of Minor, given that the state in question allowed only men to vote, the state couldn't single out Irish Catholic men, for example, and prohibit them from voting.
Given that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clarifies that the amendment applies only the Constitution's priviliges and immunities to the states, the activist federal judge in question is evidently trying to get away with cherry-picking the Equal Protections Clause to push the gay agenda, probably what he was indoctrinated to do in law school. Such judges get away with doing such things partly because of low-information voters imo.