Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 11/06/2014 7:49:50 PM PST by cripplecreek
LANSING, MI — Michigan’s gay marriage ban remains in place after a federal court ruling on Thursday, and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette both made clear they will continue to defend it.
“When I became governor, I took an oath to support and defend our state constitution, without exceptions,” Snyder said in a statement, referencing the 2004 voter-approved amendment that defined marriage as between one woman and one man.
“My obligation to carry out that oath is not a matter of personal preference. As I have said throughout this process, I will respect the court’s decision as it examines the legality of same-sex marriage.”
Snyder has consistently declined to take a stance on the underlying issue — whether the same-sex marriage ban is good public policy — which has led to criticism from gay rights supporters.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its ruling that applied to Michigan and three other states, said courts should not be the final arbiter on gay marriage.
“Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way,” Judges Jeffrey Sutton and Deborah L. Cook wrote in the majority opinion
The ruling overturned a lower court decision that had temporarily invalidated Michigan’s gay marriage ban on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Circuit Court Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, in her dissent, wrote that the her colleagues failed to address the "real issue" in the case — whether gay marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution — by focusing on who should make the decision.
The plaintiffs “are not political zealots trying to push reform,” she said, “they are committed couples, many of them heading up de facto families, who want to achieve equal status…”
Some circuit courts have struck down gay marriage bans from other states. Thursday’s ruling sets the stage for possible consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, which last month declined to take up five same-sex marriage cases but may be more likely to do so now that there are conflicting circuit court rulings.
Schuette, in a statement acknowledging the Sixth Circuit decision in a case brought to the court through an appeal by his office, noted that "Michigan's constitution remains in full effect."
"As I have stated repeatedly, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word on this issue. The sooner they rule, the better, for Michigan and the country."
Tennesseans are very happy tonight
I wish other states would fight too
At least he’s willing to do his duty
WHAT A CONCEPT!!
I’m not opposed to them playing house and sharing things like social security benefits but marriage is a religious institution and should not be forced to accept this.
They should consider that if SS were privatized, the individual could leave it to whoever he/she wanted.
As far back as the Founding, and as recently as 2012, the Supreme Court reiterated that the Executive Branch does not have the option of having its solicitor defending only the laws that the current administration supports.
BFL.
I see it as a means of forcing the privatization of SS.
It would be an interesting wedge to use.
I do not think they should have trouble visiting their significant other in the hospital. I don’t think they should be harmed financially.
None the less, marriage should be between a man and a woman.
This model and their offspring are the cornerstone of this nation.
Start messing with this, and it will be a house of cards in short order.
Just yesterday I mentioned my wish that US attorney general should be elected like they are in Michigan.
A progressive poorly trying to pretend to be moderate explained that an appointed US Attorney General is the only way the executive agenda could be enforced.
Liberals really dislike the idea of laws created by the majority. They just want the power to enforce their will on everyone else.
A have a gay “acquaintance” who is in a civil union and he readily admits the who gay “marriage” thing is little more than an attack on Christians.
Yes, I agree. Works in many states — mine, too (PA). Both the Attorney General and the Solictor General should be elected separately. The electorate should have a choice to elect independant law enforcement and law defense.
It’s an attack on religion generally, and Christianity in particular. I cant’ imagine Orthodox Jews or Conservative Jews are terribly happy about it either. If you know any homosexual males, you know even the concept of civil unions is pretty much of a joke with about 99% of them.
There was this couple that I socialized with from time to time. They were both nice people. I think it’s overkill to say over and over I think homosexuality is wrong, here or anywhere else. It is what it is.
The subject of marriage came up, and I suggested some sort of civil union rather than flat out marriage. I believe they should have decent protections concerning contracts and visitation on hospital stays or even permissions for surgery and the like.
They agreed pretty much. I don’t think every homosexual is out there thinking they need to be able to be just like heterosexuals when it comes to marriage.
You get the loud-mouthed activists...
This is a welcome but rare instance of sanity and sound, Constitutional jurisprudence from a federal court.
The bad news is that it probably moves us closer to Anthony Kennedy getting to write a sweeping, NYTimes celebrated, nauseating imposition of gay marriage on the entire nation.
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.