Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 04/09/2015 7:51:53 PM PDT by cripplecreek
GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- The lawyer arguing in favor of Michigan's same-sex marriage ban before the Supreme Court later this month defended the state's pursuit of the case, despite the fact that it runs contrary to a wide swing in public opinion since a 2004 voter-approved definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
"It's the attorney general's job to defend the (Michigan) Constitution whether he thinks it's a good idea or a bad idea," said John Bursch, the special assistant attorney general who will argue the case before the high court.
In a March 31 meeting with representatives of MLive Media Group's editorial board, Bursch also contended the state must promote heterosexual marriage because only opposite-sex couples can procreate.
Bursch and Solicitor General Aaron Lindstrom previewed the state's defense of the 2004 vote banning gay marriage. Bursch denied that the ballot initiative passed by 59% of the vote was a ban, instead calling it "a definition."
He further contended state has an interest in supporting marriage between a man and a woman, and that the U.S. Constitution does not require a broader definition of marriage, regardless of public opinion. The oral arguments will involve gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee on April 28. A ruling is likely to come in June.
The Supreme Court cannot overturn Michigan's law, Bursch contended, because the federal Constitution is silent on the definition of marriage. In lieu of a definition at the federal level, states are able to define the institution for themselves, he said.
"(Bill Schuette's) comfortable position is to defend democracy no matter what the cause," Bursch said. "We would have a lawless society if public officials didn't stand up for laws simply because they became unpopular."
Board members asked if Schuette, a Republican viewed as a gubernatorial hopeful, was taking a politically motivated approach.
Bursch rejected that notion.
"I don't think it's pandering to anybody to do his job and defend the law," he said. "I think he's putting his neck on the line by defending something that a lot of people disagree with."
Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer, two Detroit-area women, sued the state over the ban so they could get legally married and jointly adopt the four children they are raising together.
Rowse and DeBoer sued the state in January 2012. The case initially challenged Michigan adoption laws, but at the suggestion of a federal judge, the couple amended the case later that year to challenge the voter-approved gay marriage ban.
Michigan, led by Schuette's opposition, has vigorously defended the state's law at every turn in the protracted legal battle. The state has done so against public opinion polls showing growing public acceptance of the same-sex marriages and calls that the stance fosters an unwelcoming business environment.
The editorial board representatives pointed out the considerable shift in public opinion in gay marriage, and noted many business leaders say Schuette's ardent defense of the law harms Michigan's reputation on the national stage.
Bursch once again defended Schuette's motives.
"The bottom line is that the (U.S.) Constitution doesn't speak to how people should define marriage," Bursch said. "When the Constitution is silent, that means people working through the democratic process get to decide.
"The fundamental liberty at stake (in this case) is the right to vote and to participate in the democratic process. It's the vindication of our democratic system, and if we lose that we lose a heckuva lot more than a marriage definition."
It doesn't matter how many times they declare a vast swing in opinion since passing the ban. If it were true that we want gay marriage it would end up on the ballot one way or another but they can't.
The fight gets tougher every day. The next generation, even most that call themselves conservative, have bought the gay talking points hook, line, and sinker.
I think its more a matter of making themselves feel good by being “tolerant”. We can tolerate the dengue fever or nazis but it doesn’t make them good or right. It just damages us.
Are these AGs arguing that not only is marriage a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue, but that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called LGBT issues? The states are therefore free to make laws which prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.
I believe that’s about right. Basically saying that the feds have no right to decide something that was reserved to the states.
You are correct. Thankfully the Lord built into our educational system what is referred to as 'The School of Hard Knocks'. It is what turns some liberals towards conservatism after they have been mugged by thugs. The Truth is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow!
Oregon voters said marriage was between a man and a woman.
Somebody took it to court and the Oregon AG could not grasp the concept and did not defend it.
Oregon voters vote one way on referendums & then vote for people who will counter their wishes. Terminal stupidity.
They keep declaring that a vast majority supports gay marriage but they don’t seem to want a vote on it.
Funny thing is that every black run city council in the state voted against joining the lawsuit to support gay marriage.
“because the federal Constitution is silent on the definition of marriage”
Yea, well the federal Constitution is silent on the issue of amount of water in my toilet bowl also. But that hasn’t stopped them.
The federal Constitution is silent on the type of light bulbs I use also, but that hasn’t stopped them there either.
The federal Constitution is silent on how fast ketchup should flow out of the bottle, but hasn’t stopped there either.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=155.194
The federal Constitution will not stop any of the tyrannical abuses that the dictator of the day will want to impose on us....
Yes. Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect LGBT issues, the feds don’t have any constitutionally enumerated LGBT protections to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment to stop the states from exercising their 10th Amendment-protected power to prohibit gay marriage.
The reason that the corrupt feds are wrongly ignoring that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect LGBT issues is probably to try to win votes from low-information voters for RINOs and Democrats.
The real "big swing" seems to the decision of mega-corporations to promote homosexuality.
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.