Michigan's gay marriage ban struck down

[Plasmaball]

I don't. They can get married all they want. They can set up and play house and take turns calling each other mom and dad, for all I care.
But don't make the rest of us part of that farce. Don't legitimate it.

We can get married all we want in 17 states and growing (fast).

You're too late. We're legitimate.

Too legit, too legit to quit, baby!

And winning was all it ever was about to you folks.

If nothing else I hope forcing legitimacy onto the nation makes you feel better about yourself.

It was forced because the people voted to strip people of a right.judges are only doing their jobs as per the constitution. Dont like that?take it up with the founder's.

 

[WorldWatcher]

When that person has the right to come into your business and force you to change your business practices, then there is certainly an interest in who someone else marries. The statue in New York harbor is the Statue of Liberty, not the statue of equality.

Which as absolutely NOTHING to do with SSCM, that pertains to Public Accommodation laws.

Allow homosexual couples to Civilly Marry and repeal Public Accommodation law.

Homosexuals get equal treatment under the law.

And no business is "forced" to provide services to any customer based on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc.




It's a win/win.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

Hitting all three spots this morning I see, WW.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When that person has the right to come into your business and force you to change your business practices, then there is certainly an interest in who someone else marries. The statue in New York harbor is the Statue of Liberty, not the statue of equality.

So this is about change?

I mean, those b*****s who made owners of diners in the deep south change from separate black and white areas, how dare they, right?

 

[Plasmaball]

There really is no argument that will work banning gay marriage.it really boils down to people thinking its gross and not wanting it.bigotry and ignorance for the most part. Id also toss in short sightedness as well.

 

[DriftingSand]

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage

DETROIT — In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, a federal judge Friday struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony just like their heterosexual counterparts.

That makes six different states with court rulings against gay marriage bans. Ironically Michigan is probably the most liberal of the bunch. It puts huge pressure on the Supreme Court to act on all these rulings. I'd say by the end of next year we're going to see national gay marriage.

The saying used to be "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Apparently, the new saying is "when NOT in Rome do as the Romans do." We're certainly crumbling like they did.

 

[J.E.D]

I don't. They can get married all they want. They can set up and play house and take turns calling each other mom and dad, for all I care.
But don't make the rest of us part of that farce. Don't legitimate it.

You don't care if they get married as long as the marriages aren't recognized by the state. But straight marriages are recognized. So tell me again how gay couples aren't being denied anything.

You really are an ignorant person. Selfish too. How dare you try to impose your beliefs on a free people. Go away.

Does a marriage need to be state sanctioned to exist? In your mind probably yes. Because you are a fascist.
You are the one seeking to impose beliefs on others. I dont care what gay people do, although it is wrong. You want me to say Oh yes, those gay people are just like straight people but with different tastes.
It's a lie. It's a proven lie. It's an obvious lie.

I'm not talking beliefs. I'm talking state recognition of a union between two consenting adults. I'm talking marriage in the legal sense - benefits, hospital visiting priveleges, etc. Without a marriage being recognized as legitimate by the state, a couple cannot take advantage of those benefits. That is the difference. So, you can say 'they can get married if they want" all you like, but until their unions are recognized by the state and are given the same benefits as a straight marriage, they are not equal.

Of course, you know this. You're just being an obtuse troll as usual.

Also the truth is you dont give a shit about gay people. If the GOP were for gay rights you'd be claiming they're undermining America.

Says the guy who looks at them like 2nd class citizens.

Yeah, that's it. I really hope the GOP doesn't embrace gay rights; otherwise, I'll have to reveal my true feelings.

You.are.an.idiot

 

[J.E.D]

And another judge just over-ruled the first so the ban is back on!

It's called a 'stay'; not an overruling.

 

[GreenBean]

Why do any of you care if gay people get married? What's the real reason?

I don't. They can get married all they want. They can set up and play house and take turns calling each other mom and dad, for all I care.
But don't make the rest of us part of that farce. Don't legitimate it.

We can get married all we want in 17 states and growing (fast).

You're too late. We're legitimate.

Too legit, too legit to quit, baby!

Too legit, too legit to quit, baby!

Too legit ? , so is Shit , your as legit as a festering zit on the tip of your tit - "baby!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage

DETROIT — In a historic ruling that provided a huge morale boost to the gay-rights movement, a federal judge Friday struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage, making it the 18th state in the nation to allow gays and lesbians to join in matrimony just like their heterosexual counterparts.

That makes six different states with court rulings against gay marriage bans. Ironically Michigan is probably the most liberal of the bunch. It puts huge pressure on the Supreme Court to act on all these rulings. I'd say by the end of next year we're going to see national gay marriage.

The saying used to be "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Apparently, the new saying is "when NOT in Rome do as the Romans do." We're certainly crumbling like they did.

Ignorant, hyperbolic, partisan nonsense.

More Americans enjoy greater freedom today than at any time in this Nation’s history – and the best America is yet to come as gay Americans and others subject to discriminatory measures begin to realize their comprehensive civil liberties.

Comparisons to ‘Rome’ are a moronic fallacy.

 

[The Rabbi]

And another judge just over-ruled the first so the ban is back on!

Let's hope common sense and judicial integrity win out here. Marriage has always been a state matter. Not an unlimited one, but largely within state control, see Loving v VA.

Yow. You didn't think that one through, did you?

You're too fucking stupid to read and understand the opinion. We get that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage

That makes six different states with court rulings against gay marriage bans. Ironically Michigan is probably the most liberal of the bunch. It puts huge pressure on the Supreme Court to act on all these rulings. I'd say by the end of next year we're going to see national gay marriage.

The saying used to be "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Apparently, the new saying is "when NOT in Rome do as the Romans do." We're certainly crumbling like they did.

Ignorant, hyperbolic, partisan nonsense.

More Americans enjoy greater freedom today than at any time in this Nation’s history – and the best America is yet to come as gay Americans and others subject to discriminatory measures begin to realize their comprehensive civil liberties.

Comparisons to ‘Rome’ are a moronic fallacy.

They're right on. No society that recognized homosexuality ever endured for long. But apart from that, the legal basis for gay marriage is negligble, laughable even. People like to compare it, erroneously, with marriage rights for blacks. But they aren't comparable at all. What was the basis of discimination in anti-miscegenation statutes? On the basis of race. What is the basis of discrimination on gay marriage?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't. They can get married all they want. They can set up and play house and take turns calling each other mom and dad, for all I care.
But don't make the rest of us part of that farce. Don't legitimate it.

You don't care if they get married as long as the marriages aren't recognized by the state. But straight marriages are recognized. So tell me again how gay couples aren't being denied anything.

You really are an ignorant person. Selfish too. How dare you try to impose your beliefs on a free people. Go away.

Does a marriage need to be state sanctioned to exist? In your mind probably yes. Because you are a fascist.
You are the one seeking to impose beliefs on others. I dont care what gay people do, although it is wrong. You want me to say Oh yes, those gay people are just like straight people but with different tastes.
It's a lie. It's a proven lie. It's an obvious lie.
Also the truth is you dont give a shit about gay people. If the GOP were for gay rights you'd be claiming they're undermining America.

More ignorant nonsense.

It is a fact of law that the states sanction marriage as they indeed write the contract law that is marriage as administered by state courts.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private persons or organizations such as churches; religious entities remain at liberty to exclude gay couples from their religious dogma that is marriage, consequently no one is “seeking to impose beliefs on others,” again, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

You hate gay Americans, that’s clear, and you’re at liberty to express your ignorance and hatred concerning gay Americans, but you are not at liberty to seek to codify that hate and ignorance in secular law all must obey.

 

[The Rabbi]

You don't care if they get married as long as the marriages aren't recognized by the state. But straight marriages are recognized. So tell me again how gay couples aren't being denied anything.

You really are an ignorant person. Selfish too. How dare you try to impose your beliefs on a free people. Go away.

Does a marriage need to be state sanctioned to exist? In your mind probably yes. Because you are a fascist.
You are the one seeking to impose beliefs on others. I dont care what gay people do, although it is wrong. You want me to say Oh yes, those gay people are just like straight people but with different tastes.
It's a lie. It's a proven lie. It's an obvious lie.
Also the truth is you dont give a shit about gay people. If the GOP were for gay rights you'd be claiming they're undermining America.

More ignorant nonsense.

It is a fact of law that the states sanction marriage as they indeed write the contract law that is marriage as administered by state courts.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local jurisdictions, not private persons or organizations such as churches; religious entities remain at liberty to exclude gay couples from their religious dogma that is marriage, consequently no one is “seeking to impose beliefs on others,” again, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

You hate gay Americans, that’s clear, and you’re at liberty to express your ignorance and hatred concerning gay Americans, but you are not at liberty to seek to codify that hate and ignorance in secular law all must obey.

You spout nonsense and call others ignorant.
14thA applies to Federal gov't plus all other governments. Equally, it applies effectively to private businesses, like bakeries. It even applies to businesses run by religious people with consistent beliefs, see Hobby Lobby. That is imposing beliefs on others. Overturning popular referenda is imposing beliefs on others. Don't even try to pretend it isn't.
You are seeking to codify hatred of traditional marriage and religious standards, standards that have existed in the West well before the founding of the U.S. You are the hater here. And you show it with every post.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's hope common sense and judicial integrity win out here. Marriage has always been a state matter. Not an unlimited one, but largely within state control, see Loving v VA.

Yow. You didn't think that one through, did you?

You're too fucking stupid to read and understand the opinion. We get that.

No, those of us who have read the opinion understand it correctly, whereas you do not understand it correctly.

The Loving Court held that the 14th Amendment compels the state to allow all citizens access to its laws, including marriage law, where the state lacks the authority to deny citizens their individual rights:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

And that same jurisprudence is being correctly and appropriately applied by Federal judges today, in accordance with the fact that the state may not deny American citizens access to marriage law solely due to sexual orientation, absent a rational basis or proper legislative end. As the Supreme Court held in Romer, concerning a measure such as the Michigan amendment, “t is a status based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. '[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .' Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24.”

 

[The Rabbi]

Yow. You didn't think that one through, did you?

You're too fucking stupid to read and understand the opinion. We get that.

No, those of us who have read the opinion understand it correctly, whereas you do not understand it correctly.

The Loving Court held that the 14th Amendment compels the state to allow all citizens access to its laws, including marriage law, where the state lacks the authority to deny citizens their individual rights:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

And that same jurisprudence is being correctly and appropriately applied by Federal judges today, in accordance with the fact that the state may not deny American citizens access to marriage law solely due to sexual orientation, absent a rational basis or proper legislative end. As the Supreme Court held in Romer, concerning a measure such as the Michigan amendment, “t is a status based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. '[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .' Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24.”

Loving dealt with discrimination on the basis of race.
On what basis is there discrimination in same sex marriage?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hitting all three spots this morning I see, WW.

Daughter is home from UVA Law School** this weekend to do taxes (and of course go back with a car load of supplies) and Mom and Daughter were working on taxes.




** Ya, gratuitous PDS (Proud Dad Syndrome). Get over it.


>>>>

 

[Freewill]

You're too fucking stupid to read and understand the opinion. We get that.

No, those of us who have read the opinion understand it correctly, whereas you do not understand it correctly.

The Loving Court held that the 14th Amendment compels the state to allow all citizens access to its laws, including marriage law, where the state lacks the authority to deny citizens their individual rights:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

And that same jurisprudence is being correctly and appropriately applied by Federal judges today, in accordance with the fact that the state may not deny American citizens access to marriage law solely due to sexual orientation, absent a rational basis or proper legislative end. As the Supreme Court held in Romer, concerning a measure such as the Michigan amendment, “t is a status based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. '[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .' Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24.”

Loving dealt with discrimination on the basis of race.
On what basis is there discrimination in same sex marriage?

They are being denied that which they never had.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're too fucking stupid to read and understand the opinion. We get that.

No, those of us who have read the opinion understand it correctly, whereas you do not understand it correctly.

The Loving Court held that the 14th Amendment compels the state to allow all citizens access to its laws, including marriage law, where the state lacks the authority to deny citizens their individual rights:

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

And that same jurisprudence is being correctly and appropriately applied by Federal judges today, in accordance with the fact that the state may not deny American citizens access to marriage law solely due to sexual orientation, absent a rational basis or proper legislative end. As the Supreme Court held in Romer, concerning a measure such as the Michigan amendment, “t is a status based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. '[C]lass legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . .' Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., at 24.”

Loving dealt with discrimination on the basis of race.
On what basis is there discrimination in same sex marriage?

Equality before the law, in this case that of two unmarried consenting adults. Since there's no requirement for them to produce children, there's no requirement to have them drop their pants before being granted a state-issued license.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What was the basis of discimination in anti-miscegenation statutes? On the basis of race. What is the basis of discrimination on gay marriage?

Last I checked such laws in the past were written based on the racial composition of the couple. These laws are written in terms of the gender composition of the couple (i.e. one man and one woman).


Race is a biological factor, gender is a biological factor.


The basis of discrimination, technically as a function of law, is gender.



>>>>