http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/justice/michigan-gay-marriage/ Well, I'm surprised. Having read the trial transcripts, the judge struck me as very deferential to the defendants. However, the decision handed down is anything but deferential. A few excerpts from a transcript of the ruling: The ruling further characterizes the defense's expert witnesses as representing "a fringe viewpoint that is rejected by the vast majority of their colleagues across a variety of social science fields." Also stated, "state defendants cited a small number of outlier studies in support of the optimal child-rearing rationale." "Fringe" and "outlier". Pretty strong wording. More to come.
Further quoting the transcript: (emphasis added) With regard to the defense's "optimal environment" argument, the decision states: (emphasis added above; part of defendants' expert witnesses tried to show that children parented by same-sex couples do poorly in school as compared to those of opposite-sex couples. The judge was skeptical of those assertions as well.) Sound familiar? Sounds like many of the counterarguments put forth in these forums, and doubtless others.
"Proceeding with caution": We've heard this one a lot - the claim that same-sex couples marrying is too new; that we don't know what its outcomes will be. Well, we aren't going to find out by banning them from legal marriage now, are we? Moreover, I think the judge has this right - that the equation is altered where deprivation of constitutionally protected rights (such as equal protection of the laws) are concerned.
Tradition and Morality: (emphasis added above) Tradition for the sake of tradition alone is not a rational basis for a law. Nor is subjective moral disapproval.
Federalism: As expected, defendants tried to use a section of the Windsor decision that talks about federal deference to states in regulating marriage. But the Court wasn't having it. Have a look: I said much the same in reply to a certain poster post-Windsor, who insisted the passage cited by the defendants would settle the question of state regulation of marriage in favor of the state bans. That person also chose to gloss over the caveats. The Court didn't agree with such selective memory any more than I did.
This was a very welcome and beautiful surprise to wake up to today after working third shift. I am so happy that my home state has joined the growing number of state recognizing same sex marriage.
While a stay will almost certainly be granted by SCOTUS, I nevertheless have three words for you Perriquine: told you so! The recent plethora of cases will absolutely ensure a 5-4 majority ruling next year. Marriage equality will be legal in every state.
We think more likely Spring of 2016 before any of these cases reach the Supreme Court. There's an appeals level (circuit courts) to be cleared first. We'll have to see what happens then. My partner and I don't have any plans to rush out and try to get a marriage license. We'll wait for the process to work, or go out of state if push comes to shove.
I'm patient. I will wait till this reached the SCOTUS or is punted back to the state level leaving the ban unconstitutional as was the way of Prop 8. Either way. Progress is picking up speed.
Well now I just feel a little jealous. The Nevada case is drrraaaaaaging...... I want to join the party of legal limbo too!!!!
The Homophobe Army is retreating on all fronts. Soon Rick Santorum will be in his Bunker, dreaming up imaginary divisions for a "counter-offensive"... [video=youtube;t7PmzdINGZk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7PmzdINGZk[/video]
And quite premature. Gay Marriage in Michigan.... still banned. Aww, so close Put those plans on hold, boys...
If you're against equal rights for homosexuals, you've lost. (And of course, the fight isn't over.) Time marches on!
On hold, what are you talking about? This is all part of our plan to make those defending the ban look like bafoons grasping at straws, while the stay gives the impression of measured and thoughtful patience to the courts, enhancing their legitimacy. In due time my friend, in due time. Now let me get back to my child recruitment, or whatever it is you think I do in my spare time.
I know it will become legal soon, and I'm not against it any more than I'm for it. But for one who is... how have they lost? The judge's ruling has been struck down. Gay marriage is illegal in Michigan.... again. All those weekend marriages are null and void.... and this case is being forced to go through the appeals process. So not only have gays lost the current battle, they aren't having their desires handed to them as they are always demanding. You're celebrating this?
It's good to expand/allow people the rights they're truly entitled to. Those 'against' homosexual people have striven to deny or oppress them; in America they have had the social and legal 'clout' to do that for many centuries. They are still fighting to hold onto such pose, but it is (necessarily) slipping away from them. Those people are 'losing' and will continue to do so. It won't remain so. The opponents of equal rights for homosexuals are steadily 'losing', it is obvious. And yes, the fight continues; it WILL be persistent.
Your plan was to completely upset dozens of gays who "married" over the weekend only to find out it doesn't even count? Some plan. Those "defending the ban" are only "defending the constitution". Yeah, one of those things we haven't seen much under Obama. So the buffoons are who? Those applying constitutional law until it's sorted out... or those crying and swinging their purses as they find out their husband... isn't their husband. Like most people on Earth, I make a point of never pondering what you gays do in your spare time.
Of course. And while marriage is not a "right" for heterosexuals, by all means make it a "right" when applied to gays. They are not the ones losing, today. At this point, victory lands on the side of traditional marriage. I agree, and have said so. But at this point, the gays have... as you say... "lost". Like I said, I know the gays hate having to go through the same procedures everyone else does, but forcing this to the appeals courts is the only correct move. I don't care who the group is, or how whiny they are, you don't just change constitutional laws on a whim... like rogue judges who want to be "heroes". The laws will change.... just do it properly like everyone else has to.
Time will tell what ? You're so caught up int your automatic gay anger, that you can't even see when someone agrees with you. Gay marriage will be legal in all of the US soon. Probably just to stop all the whining.
It will tell us what the final resolutions are. (That's what.) We can only speculate and fight for how things will turn out, but future decisions will be reality. Are you suggesting that homosexual people should just let things run their course, in the present?
