Michigan strikes down gay marriage ban

If your point is that the Judge stepped on the State's Constitution, you're right. But it does not matter, because the State's Constitution stepped on the US Constitution, and when that happens, the US Constitution takes priority. The Judge did the right thing, and will be upheld on appeal.

 

Finally... welcome to the conversation.

 

Well that is sure interesting! Pretty sharp! But how can we be sure which one is correct? They both seem to be from credible sources. It seems that the version that you posted would have strengthened the Michigan case. Instead, the judge just declared it irrelevant.

 

That's a very interesting point that is lost on most people!

 

All very interesting but fodder for another tread .Michigan!

 

What is your objection? It is is DUTY to step on the State's Constitution if it is out of line with the Federal Constitution. Fed trumps State every time.

 

Considering that my citation comes from the actual decision of the Minn. State Supreme Court I'd tend to give it preferential status as opposed to a story about the decision.

It is "irrelevant" because State Courts don't establish Federal legal precendent. They are often referred to by only "en passant" similar to a Court citing the Federalist Papers in a decision. There is no legally binding precedent so the Court can merely dismiss the argument if it chooses to do so.

 

Funny, you talk about joining the conversation while not even addressing the rest of the post you quoted from... sounds like you only wish to address one side. Feel free to join the conversation whenever you like like

 

My understanding was that because SCOTUS was required to review it, their decision to dismiss did, indeed, provide precedent... but only on the particular circumstances of the case. As you pointed out, Baker did not involve a couple with children, so the question of whether or not the state interest in child rearing would apply similarly in their circumstance was not part of the case. Thus there was no argument to dismiss, rather it is a case involving precedent on different circumstances.

This was also a time when homosexuality was widely regarded as a mental disorder, comorbid with other disorders. It was pre-Romer and pre-Lawrence. Views on the legal & social circumstances and on mental health have shifted dramatically over the years, providing a completely different landscape for the review of the question.

I would have thought the version Shiva_TD posted would weaken the states case, but maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying. By focusing only on the act of procreation as a state interest (and I would argue that the act itself is not a state interest, but rather the circumstances around it), there is no interest in same-sex couples marrying. Same-sex couples do, however, rear children, which begs the question of whether the state interest in child rearing expressed in Shiva_TD's quote applies just as well to them, or whether there are different considerations that apply in the case of the couple being members of the same sex vs opposite sex. This was not addressed in Baker, thus there is no precedent to consider on this.

 

This is something many seem to not understand. The courts only address the issues presented by the plaintiffs. In Baker v Nelson the issue of children being raised was not addressed nor was any consideration related to federal laws governing inheritance, bankrupcy, spousal Social Security benefits, etc. that would have required a filing in a federal court and not a state court. Baker v Nelson, while being the first case, wasn't a very good case in addressing the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment. It failed to present "harm" that the court would have been compelled to address. It's argument was "we should be allowed to marry just because we want to" and that wasn't a good case.

 

This is what we've been waiting for and expecting. A circuit split. Give the importance of the issue to so many people, SCOTUS is going to feel enormous pressure to take this case.:

 

Smack Down #1

And from Missouri, a 8th Circuit state, where the state ban on same sex marriage was just struck down by Federal Judge Ortrie D. Smith we have this:

Source: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...kes_swipe_at_6th_circuit_anti_marriage_ruling

 

That's one of the jobs of the judicial branch, deciding whether or not laws and state constitutions adhere to the US constitution.

 

Even if the majority of Americans were smart enough, rights are not a voting issue. The will of the majority is irrelevant.

 

I have no issues with people basing their personal morality on the bible. I have an issue with people who think they have the right to force their morals on others through law. The only argument against gay marriage is a religious one, and per the constitution, no law can be made which is based solely on religious believe. This applies also to state constitutions. The US constitution, and constitutional federal law are supreme.

 

Oh excuse the hell out of us. Michigan did not strike it down OK? A Federal Judge enforcing the Constitution of the United States of America did. That's how our system of laws works. This is a Federal Republic and a Constitutional Democracy. Do you understand what all of that means? No? Look it up and get back to us.

 

Supreme Court here we come. Tennessee is in the same circuit-the 6th- as Michigan. Also included is Ohio, and Kentucky . It looks like there will be cases coming up from all of those states challenging the 6th Circuit's idiotic which upheld state bans on marriage equality.
Just hours after the Ohio plaintiffs who lost their same-sex marriage case in the 6th Circuit filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiffs in the Tennessee case have also filed.

 

Read it all!! It's worth it! http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...age_case_dissent_is_hilarious_and_humane.html

 

This could well be the case that SCOTUS takes:

Source http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen..._supreme_court_to_hear_marriage_equality_case

There are cases communing up from all of the other 3 states in the 6th circuit as well!

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/...w-marriage-is-moving-forward-in-all-50-states

 

This a great article from the Constitutional Accountability Center regarding Judge Suttons inane opinion out of the 6th circuit. The most jarring excerpts appear below: http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2999/judge-sutton’s-loving-problem

 

To clarify a few things about the Michigan case:

This was originally a case about second-parent adoption, not same-sex marriage recognition. The latter issue is an amendment to the original complaint.

Interestingly, the state more or less dropped the arguments made in the initial trial (where it lost), choosing instead to focus on the deference of rational basis scrutiny and issues of democratic populism in its presentation to the 6th Circuit. This means that if the Supreme Court takes the case (and we think Michigan's is the most likely to be heard since it's the only one that had a full trial at the district level), it could be deciding a much narrower legal question. I wouldn't be surprised if they remanded the case back to the 6th Circuit with instructions concerning the level of scrutiny to be applied.

 

Hummm interesting. Thanks for that insight. Another punt. And the beat goes on.

 

Another note concerning Michigan: The state is now saying that the same-sex marriages that took place following the district court's ruling are invalid.

http://www.michigandaily.com/news/state-changes-stance-validity-march-same-sex-marriages

Another case, separate from the one recently ruled on by the 6th Circuit, challenges the state's position on these marriages.

Basically, the state is is trying to 'unmarry' these couples. And I know a few of them personally. My partner and I weren't able to join them, as our county of residence didn't issue licenses during the period between the ruling and the stay. So we remain on the sidelines, watching things unfold.

 

We have someone "on the ground in Michigan!" Keep it coming.

 

So the basic question regarding same-sex couples in Michigan, who married between the district court ruling and the stay of that ruling, is whether those marriages are legal, as the governor originally said they were. It was a weird position for the state to take, since along with this he said the state wouldn't recognize these legal marriages, pending the outcome of the appeal of the DeBoer/Rowse case. Now these marriages that the state previously regarded as legal (but refused to accord full recognition) are downgraded to having no legal status whatsoever according to the state.

Let's look at a similar, though not identical situation: same-sex marriages in California. During the period between the overturning of Prop 22 and the passage of Prop 8 in that state, something like 14,000 same-sex couples were married there. When Prop 8 was challenged at the state's Supreme Court, its proponents tried to have those legal marriages nullified. But the Court wasn't having it. It said the marriages were legal when they occurred, and that the passage of Prop 8 couldn't retroactively nullify them.

However, part of the reason for the failure of this attempt at nullification in California may have been the wording of Prop 8, which nowhere said the effects of the law should be retroactive.

Technically speaking, the marriages of same-sex couples in Michigan were similarly legal when they took place. Which explains why the governor acknowledged them as such.

Here's where I point out that any ruling is first and foremost about the case's plaintiffs. The state of Michigan is basically trying to say that the latest outcome in the DeBoer/Rowse case applies to people who weren't plaintiffs in that case, in an attempt at nullifying their legal marriages. Yet, these married couples didn't bring suit or join the existing one in an effort to legalize same-sex marriages. These couples waited until it was possible for them to be legally married. Granted, their ability to legally marry is an outcome of the DeBoer case overturning Michigan's marriage law, but that doesn't mean a secondary outcome in the DeBoer case (the reversal of the lower court by the appeals court) automatically makes those previously legally married couples suddenly unmarried.

Which is why we now have a separate case challenging this new interpretation of law by the state's agents (governor, attorney general, etc.)

It is one thing for a higher court to say that a lower court erred in its interpretation of the law concerning a plaintiff's complaint; quite another to say that other people's reliance on that (erroneous) interpretation of law makes them subject to a subsequent ruling on a case - one in which they have no direct involvement.

On the one hand, a person could take the view that, given the likelihood the DeBoer case would be appealed, the district court should have stayed its own ruling. However, stays are not automatic, and especially when it is deemed that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail in the event of an appeal, a stay may not be granted. One might think it unwise to rely on an interpretation of law that is likely going to be appealed. On the other hand, it's not necessarily always in a person's best interest to await later outcomes when the opportunity presents itself. For example, if one member of a couple has an illness likely to prove fatal, and who may not survive to see the end of various court challenges. Better they should marry as soon as they're able, in the hope of a more lasting success, rather than waiting.