Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 02/04/2015 2:46:28 PM PST by Olog-hai
Michigan will recognize more than 300 same-sex marriages that were quickly performed in the hours before an appeals court blocked a ruling legalizing the unions, Gov. Rick Snyder announced Wednesday.
The Republican said he wouldn’t appeal a federal court’s ruling last month that required the state to recognize the marriages performed on March 22, 2014. The governor’s decision means the ruling takes effect Thursday and could affect the couples’ health insurance coverage, their ability to jointly adopt children and other state benefits.
“The judge has determined that same-sex couples were legally married on that day, and we will follow the law and extend state marriage benefits to those couples,” Snyder said in a statement.
A different federal judge struck down Michigan’s 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage on March 21. Same-sex couples in four counties married the next day, before an appeals court suspended the decision and blocked additional marriages. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
If I can save on taxes, I want to marry my dog. She’s a sweetie....
Snyder facilitates pedophile adoptions. Slime
Governerd has turned out to be gay....
And if you divorce your dog, it’ll only hit you up for some bones and a few table scraps. Some might call that a win-win situation.
I thought it was the people of Mihigan whom decided in 2004 that gay s will not be allowed to marry. States Rights not the rights of judges to edict that gays have rights to marry. All this is more crappola.
Edicts from the bench are technically “law.” That goes back to English common law as adopted here since courts were established here hundreds of years ago. That’s the way its always been. One of those edicts was the courts formally acknowledging the God given right to self defense, as the courts here borrowed from the King of England’s courts.
So was the castle doctrine originally adopted here by court rulings in common law centuries ago.
No, the judicial system here was not set up to allow legislation from the bench. Judges are supposed to rule on existing law, not create new law. A republic is not a krytocracy.
The only reason Snyder ever opposed gay marriage was as a fiscal issue.
It was never a moral issue with him.
However, that’s the way it is. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created this. Only similar legislation can change the way its done. Like it or not, we’re stuck with hundreds of years of court ruling precedents, like it or not. Legislation is the only way to “override” a court edict.
This goes back to Marbury versus Madison. Not likely to change soon.
This is part of the checks and balances system.
Court edicts are a check and balance on the Legislature and the Executive. If you can find law otherwise, please post it.
This is reality. The Sorry, not my fault. Blame those who set this up in 1789.
There is No Way my dog is going to divorce me ...or vice versa....
We are a team.
“That’s the way it is”? No, it was not that way until Earl Warren. This has nothing to do with the Judiciary Act decision; judicial activism is the antithesis of that decision and is not judicial review.
Uh, it’s a fecal issue.....
I'm going to recognize about 300 unicorns. My unicorns will be just as real as the "marriages" they recognize.
Olog: I’m not going to argue with you. I don’t agree with judicial activism rulings either. But, it has happened practicallh since there have been courts. Judicial activism? Read the Dred Scott decision from the slavery days. This is nothing new.
Take note of what Dred Scott versus Sanford led directly into—the near-loss of the republic.
I agree that judicial corruption is an historic fact, but to infer that it is the normal status quo simply because it exists and has existed is what I disagree with.
The only “law” that sticks anymore is the one the court imposes. The other stuff, including the constitution, is just a diversion to keep us entertained.
They shouldn’t be too hard to recognize. Just look for two guys copulating like a couple of dogs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.