Michigan strikes down gay marriage ban

And what "facts" are those PP?

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever helps you sleep better at night. It's not my wife LoL

What do you think her desire for (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) ends when you leave the room? (*)(*)(*)(*) of here with that garbage lol

 

I think that you know unless you have a very short and faulty memory. In case you do....that thing about how gays may be viewed as a protected class WITHOUT legislation. Remember. That one was a grand slam for me!

 

No the (*)(*)(*)(*) it can't. You quoted a group of liberals who said that other groups of liberals were trying to decide whether or not the decision from the SCOTUS somehow declared that sexual orientation was a protected a class.

Do you understand that it is not with the scope or power of the SCOTUS to declare a class to be protected?

What they CAN do is declare a law to be unconstitutional. For instance, they could declare that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because it explicitly states some groups are protected while others are not. But then you'd need congress to pass a law that includes your homosexuals as a protected class (along with sex and race because it would strike those protections down)

But the SCOTUS can't simply declare they're going to add sexual orientation into that part of the Civil Rights Act... it's not within their power to do so.

 

I did not say that they could include gays in the civil rights act. Get a grip. I said that at any time they can treat them as a protected class and apply the strict scrutiny standard to anti gay laws, as well as to determine that they are subject to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Wake up and smell the coffee:

And during the proposition 8 hearing at SCOTUS there was this exchange between JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and Mr Coope, attorney for the petitioners: http://www.livescience.com/28194-proposition-8-supreme-court-transcript.html
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the -¬ outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a State using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard. I think marriage is -¬
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. If that -¬ if that is true, then why aren't they a class? If they're a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren't we treating them as a class for this one thing? Are you saying that the interest of marriage is so much more compelling than any other interest as they could have?


Got it?

 

That's what I said earlier, they reinterpreted the 14th amendment. All that needs to be done is to apply a correct interpretation of the 14th amendment by a more conservative court.

LoL if that was his answer, that was absolutely pathetic. No wonder they ruled against him. He's apparently completely incompetent.

They need to hire me. I'd be more than happy to provide Sotomayor (the wise latina) with several other examples.

That's the beautiful thing about judicial activism, when someone comes back with a better case, the courts will rule in our favor.

 

Because the whole point is to share. It's why we do what we do.

 

That's YOUR answer?!! It's not that the attorney is incompetent , it's that there are no good answers. They should hire you? Are you an attorney? And expert in constitutional law? How many oral arguments have you presented to SCOTUS? You can think of better answers? Lets hear them. Interesting how each time you're called on a point, you try to squirm out of it by throwing in a red herring- like that business about the civil rights act which I never mentioned and had NOTHING to do with anything that I said.

 

Really? Then why are all the last second marriages from Saturday in Michigan... all "null and void" ?

oops.

- - - Updated - - -

Not everyone lives their social life on their computers. Sorry you were missing me.

 

It's amazing how you just make up stuff as you go and expect us to believe it. Why do you think that you can get away with that? Those marriages are not "void" They are on hold pending appeal. When the state of Michigan looses the appeal, those marriages will be recognized and the court ruling overturning the state constitutional ban will be reinstated. I've explained this to you before but either your to obtuse to understand or too distraught over the advancement of gay rights that you can't accept reality:

http://news.yahoo.com/michigan-not-...its-pending-appeal-180828591.html?.tsrc=attcf

Governor Snyder, a Republican who is running for reelection this year, on Wednesday answered at least some of their questions, saying that the married same-sex couples would not receive state benefits of marriage until further court rulings. Snyder is declining to discuss his own position on gay marriage.

"Because the stay brings Michigan law on this issue back into effect, the rights tied to these marriages are suspended until the stay is lifted or Judge Friedman's decision is upheld on appeal," Snyder said in a statement.

Friedman's ruling was the latest in a series of decisions supporting the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry since the U.S. Supreme Court found in June that legally married same-sex couples were eligible for federal benefits.


.

 

Procedural technicalities. When SCOTUS rules that SSM is a fundamental right, and at this point with so much precedent saying the exact same thing they don't really have a choice, it will be. From sea to shining sea. I predict it will happen next summer.

 

I agree with you, but to say the State Constitution is "null and void" would mean none of this would have ever happened.
The state Constitution, no matter what you think of it, and no matter how it is overruled soon, is exactly why this happened.

Those people got married, and are angry now because it isn't considered valid. That's a fact, it's on the news.
They are mad at the Governor because he won't trample the state's Constitution.... instead of doing what he's doing by saying "let the courts handle this".

How soon that changes, and it will, depends on the proper procedures of fighting the ban.
A silly judge stepping in at 4:59PM on a Friday, knowing nothing can override his decision come 5:00, is not how the "game" should be played.

 

... or in the eyes of state government. I support the repeal or judicial nullification of all "marriage" laws and the reference to "marriage" under the law.

"Marriage" is a personal financial partnership between individuals estabilished by contract, either verbal or written, based upon voluntary consent between adults and should be exclusively addressed under contract law. All "partnerships" should be treated identically under contract law.

 

How come this idea only comes up in the context of the same sex marriage debate? My theory is that nobody really thinks it's a good idea or at best, have not thought it through and sorted out all of the implications. Rather, they put it out there as a red herring in order to short circuit the gay marriage issue. Does anybody think that those people who are fearful of the demise of "traditional" marriage going to go for this. I think that you know that they wont. However, that may blame the gays and their advocates for being responsible, as in a slippery slope scenario. So what's the real deal here? Be honest

 

You know what the real deal is here, you just said it. The attempt is to try to deny same sex couples equal treatment under the law. Those on that side of the issue will try anything in order to make gay people treated as less than equal. It would be nice if they would simply be honest.

 

Actually I did interact with one person on here who really seemed to support marriage equality and advocated for this sort of thing but that's a rarity. Mostly they have nefarious intent. Lets see what we get back on this. It's an interesting issue.

 

I posted the latest polls but she didn't have anything to say about it. It's awesome! What a difference a decade makes!!

PS. I seriously doubt that the avatar is what we're dealing with her. Too, too hot. If it were real, MY wife might be interested. Hell, I would be. Then again, we don't do conservatives.

 

As a libertarian, I have no philosophical issue with "getting government out of marriage altogether". That said, I agree with you their motive for bringing it up is a red herring to do something, ANYTHING, to deny same sex couples equal treatment. But as a practical matter, it simply is not going to happen, so any discussion about it is merely academic.

 

As a pro government , tax and spend liberal ( tax the "right people" and spend on the "right things" that is, I don't usually get along with libertarians, but we seem to be doing OK. Maybe my problem with Libertarians is the Republicans' like Rand Paul who present themselves as Libertarians but try to shoe horn their way into the Republican platform. Case in point, Paul will say "leave the issue of marriage to the states". Right! We can see where that got us.

 

"Leave it to the states" is fine, so long as the federal Constitution is followed, and it's clear that prohibiting SSM violates equal protection. We might disagree on guns, though lol...

 

But the constitution will not be followed if left to the states. Look at the 30 states that have constitutional bans on SSM. We need a strong and activist central government. Some states and some pols would like to go back to the articles of confederation. As for guns, another time, another thread

 

You misunderstood me. I don't mean "let them do unconstitutional things". I mean leave it to them to make their own rules, within the limits of what is and is not Constitutional. If one state wants a waiting period and blood tests, and another doesn't, so be it, whatever. But unless someone can make a convincing legal argument that makes me change my mind, it seems clear to me that banning same sex marriage is not something they're entitled to do.

 

OK we agree. No misunderstanding. We haven't heard any more from Shadow?? LOL

 

Perhaps one of the greatest "insults" to me politically is when Rand Paul is painted by the media as being a libertarian. He's not by any definition a libertarian.

Of note I am a card carrying Libertarian and I advocate tax reform based upon "tax burden relative to income" and collecting enough in taxes to fund the authorized expenditures of Congress, even though I disagree with much of the spending, to eliminate deficit spending as well as increasing the wealth of the bottom 50% of the people by an exceptionally good plan to privatizes Social Security while retaining a safety net that is four-times greater than it is today.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...eliminating-crony-capitalism-taxation-us.html

As you note Rand Paul is opposed to the US Constitution when it comes to equality in marriage as he is generally opposed to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as being opposed the the unenumerated Rights of the Person protected by the 9th Amendment.

Libertarians are generally fiscal conservatives (like I am in supporting paying for the authorized expenditures of government even when I might disagree with them) and social liberals (supporting equality in marriage and open immigration for peaceful purposes by eliminating quotas). Rand Paul opposes a balanced budget, opposes equality in marriage, and opposes the elimination of quotas on immigration (that statistically target Hispanics and are "racist").

 

Thank you for those insights. I know that there a different kinds of Libertarians. Paul is just trying to get the youth vote. I hope they are smarter. Anyway, maybe you got it right as far as what a Libertarian should be. I would guess that there are "libertarians" that would not much like you though. You actually see a legitimate role for government

 

DETROIT (AP) — U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has extended federal recognition to the Michigan marriages of about 300 same-sex couples that took place before a federal appeals court put those unions on hold.

Holder's action on Friday enables the government to extend eligibility for federal benefits to the couples. It came two days after Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder said Michigan won't recognize the marriages performed last weekend. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down the gay marriage ban the day before.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/28/eric-holder-michigan-gay-marriage_n_5049251.html