Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Detroit Free Press)   While everyone is distracted by the debt ceiling fight, a federal judge may legalize same-sex marriage in Michigan today   (freep.com) divider line 121
    More: Interesting, Michigan Today, gay marriage ban, Michigan, LGBT rights in Michigan, federal judges, Michigan Attorney General, federal benefits, federal courts  
•       •       •

2529 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2013 at 2:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-10-16 01:12:58 PM  
Cool. While I really wish that SCOTUS had given a more definitive ruling it was enough to spell the end of these kinds of laws at the State level. I predict that the Michigan law will be overturned that that this is only the first of many.
 
2013-10-16 01:30:50 PM  
FTFA: nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires or permits federal courts to invalidate a state's decision

i.imgur.com


Yeah. Run with that. I'm sure the Federal judge hearing the case loved that one.
 
2013-10-16 01:50:20 PM  
Good. Marriage equality is past time.

Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what anyone else has on their plates...
 
2013-10-16 01:59:54 PM  
Good.
 
2013-10-16 02:01:57 PM  
yep, they are gonna slip it in the back door.
 
2013-10-16 02:02:40 PM  
Pfft.  Like I want to gay marry anyone from Michigan.
 
2013-10-16 02:04:47 PM  
I'm fine with this, so long as the complete ban on Yooper marriage remains intact.
 
2013-10-16 02:28:36 PM  
You hear that Tea Partiers?  We're destroying your country.  And we're ENJOYING it.
 
2013-10-16 02:30:26 PM  
Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.
 
2013-10-16 02:36:36 PM  
This was the only good thing about the shutdown.  I didn't have to hear about gay marriage for a while.  I may get gay married just to spite the retards who are still making this an issue.  My girlfriend may not approve though.

It's happening, you lost, get over it.
 
2013-10-16 02:36:46 PM  
Sex by surprise?
 
2013-10-16 02:38:19 PM  
Nobody cares anymore. Deal with it.
 
2013-10-16 02:38:50 PM  
You know if we don't let them get married they're still going to be gay.  Just FYI.
 
2013-10-16 02:38:53 PM  

Somacandra: FTFA: nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires or permits federal courts to invalidate a state's decision



Yeah. Run with that. I'm sure the Federal judge hearing the case loved that one.


I appreciate the thought.

But you couldn't reference, the very appropriate, Loving v Virginia?
 
2013-10-16 02:39:43 PM  
Just to be clear, the judge delayed this case back in March because he wanted to wait to see how the Supreme Court would rule on it's gay marriage cases in June.  So that seems like a good indicator that he's now going to rule in favor of overturning the ban in Michigan.
 
2013-10-16 02:41:30 PM  

slayer199: Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.


LOL.... Wierd? Try living here. We can't decide if we are rednecks or hillbillies. All we do know is we own guns, we love pasties, we like Obama, and we are suspicious of Tea Partiers .... and Ted Nugent lives here.

Pretty scary mix overall.... But still not worthy of a FARK Michigan tag
 
2013-10-16 02:41:46 PM  
I believe in the sanctity of marriage.  I believe that marriage, when properly practiced, is a great institution for strengthening the bounds of a relationship, bringing stability to family and home, and encouraging monogamous relationships, which in turn may help reduce the spread of STDs.  It is for this reason, that I believe that gays should not only have the right to marry, but that if Christians truly believed in the power of the institution, that they would insist in encouraging gays to do so.
 
2013-10-16 02:42:53 PM  
Yay!
 
2013-10-16 02:43:56 PM  
Let's hope this is the first of many anti-marriage laws that fall.  Like dominoes.
 
2013-10-16 02:44:18 PM  
STEALTHY GAY AGENDA INVADES MICHIGAN

The GOP warned us about them, temping good Christian men with their naughty bits and tight buns. You don't need to be in the gym everyday, Homo!!!
 
2013-10-16 02:44:58 PM  

wxboy: Just to be clear, the judge delayed this case back in March because he wanted to wait to see how the Supreme Court would rule on it's gay marriage cases in June.  So that seems like a good indicator that he's now going to rule in favor of overturning the ban in Michigan.


Unfortunately, I doubt that's the case.  The Court sidestepped the equal protection issue, but in dicta i the DOMA opinion, it stated that the states should be left to their own determinations of what marriage is.  The only thing the DOMA opinion dealt with was whether the federal government could deny benefits to people who were legally married in states that recognized same sex marriage.  The Court never specifically dealt with the issue of whether a state could ban same sex marriage.  It merely held that the group defending the law did not have standing to do so, and so let the lower court ruling that overturned the ban stand.  I don't know that the judge here is going to read the DOMA opinion and say, "Well even though it says the states can determine what constitutes a valid marriage, I'm just going to ignore that because it's dicta."  I mean he could do that, but it's not very likely.
 
2013-10-16 02:46:44 PM  

AngryDragon: This was the only good thing about the shutdown.  I didn't have to hear about gay marriage for a while.  I may get gay married just to spite the retards who are still making this an issue.  My girlfriend may not approve though.

It's happening, you lost, get over it.


Gyrfalcon: Nobody cares anymore. Deal with it.


Ummm... yeah, I care.  I care that I still can't get married in the majority of states.  I care that there are state constitutional amendments that specifically say I don't have the same rights as everyone else.  I care that leaving my home country and living as a guest worker affords me more legal protections from discrimination than staying in my beloved homeland (though that's not why I did it).  I care that the federal government has refused to do for all citizens what they did for people of color 50-60 years ago, because it might piss off religious people.

Please - if you support gay marriage, or simply are okay with it, then don't stop caring until the entire country joins the 21st century.
 
2013-10-16 02:47:41 PM  

The Evil Home Brewer: LOL.... Wierd? Try living here. We can't decide if we are rednecks or hillbillies. All we do know is we own guns, we love pasties, we like Obama, and we are suspicious of Tea Partiers .... and Ted Nugent lives here.

Pretty scary mix overall.... But still not worthy of a FARK Michigan tag


I do live in Michigan...which is why I said it was weird.  We have Detroit, and then we have the downriver rednecks next door to Detroit.  We have the one of the largest Arabic populations in the country, yet no terrorist attacks (of course, what would you attack?  Detroit looks like it's already been bombed).  It's an odd state politically...solidly Blue for Presidential and Senate elections....solidly red within the state House and Senate.  It's strange.

Ted Nugent no longer lives in Michigan...he moved to Texas some years ago (but I think his hunting store in Jackson is still around).
 
2013-10-16 02:50:27 PM  
The June DOMA ruling was that the federal government would acknowledge any state-sanctioned marriage.  The prop 8 case wasn't really a ruling, it was a refusal to even hear, if I recall correctly, so technically nothing was decided there.
Honestly, while I support marriage between any two legally consenting individuals, I'm not sure if I agree that the Feds are allowed to intervene... Honestly, I am disappointed that this case is being presented as a marriage issue, rather than what it really is, an adoption issue.  If the couple in the story had gotten legally married in another state, does the fed or state handle their right/privilege to adoption?  Could the ladies petition another state court for the adoptions?  I could see that becoming a federal matter if the state tried to ignore guardianship rights granted by another state...
 
2013-10-16 02:51:52 PM  
They should just go ahead and legalize everything in Detroit and see how that works out.
 
2013-10-16 02:53:54 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: AngryDragon: This was the only good thing about the shutdown.  I didn't have to hear about gay marriage for a while.  I may get gay married just to spite the retards who are still making this an issue.  My girlfriend may not approve though.

It's happening, you lost, get over it.

Gyrfalcon: Nobody cares anymore. Deal with it.

Ummm... yeah, I care.  I care that I still can't get married in the majority of states.  I care that there are state constitutional amendments that specifically say I don't have the same rights as everyone else.  I care that leaving my home country and living as a guest worker affords me more legal protections from discrimination than staying in my beloved homeland (though that's not why I did it).  I care that the federal government has refused to do for all citizens what they did for people of color 50-60 years ago, because it might piss off religious people.

Please - if you support gay marriage, or simply are okay with it, then don't stop caring until the entire country joins the 21st century.


I don't think either of us were addressing you, I know I wasn't.  My comment was to the neanderthals who are still resisting this.  I'm happy for you guys.  Glad things are moving forward.  Seems like such a stupid thing to dig your heels in on.  I'm totally on your side.
 
2013-10-16 02:55:08 PM  

slayer199: Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.


I agree with both statements. Michigan IS pretty odd, and I'm very glad that this might get overturned.
 
2013-10-16 02:55:09 PM  
I don't have a dog in this fight.

OTOH, I did have hot buttsecks last night. So, YAY?
 
2013-10-16 02:58:51 PM  

Semantic Warrior: Honestly, while I support marriage between any two legally consenting individuals, I'm not sure if I agree that the Feds are allowed to intervene


The 14th amendment says all people should have equal protection under the law.  So when a state law treats some people unequally, the Feds should intervene.  Pretty simple actually.
 
2013-10-16 03:01:21 PM  

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: I don't have a dog in this fight.

OTOH, I did have hot buttsecks last night. So, YAY?


Is that why your dog can't fight?

/sorry
 
2013-10-16 03:01:55 PM  
 
2013-10-16 03:03:17 PM  

lennavan: Semantic Warrior: Honestly, while I support marriage between any two legally consenting individuals, I'm not sure if I agree that the Feds are allowed to intervene

The 14th amendment says all people should have equal protection under the law.  So when a state law treats some people unequally, the Feds should intervene.  Pretty simple actually.


I agree, but historically that hasn't been the case, from women to minorities to gays and lesbians. The ideal of the 14th amendment hasn't been supported or enforced since the day it was written. At least we can say that we're slowly (and damn reluctantly for some people) rising to fulfill that ideal (no pun intended).
 
2013-10-16 03:03:43 PM  
Live blog of the ruling:
http://live.freep.com/Event/Live_blog_Michigan_judge_expected_to_rul e_ on_gay_marriage_ban

As of now, the latest is:
She quotes from another case, if discrimination would be allowed, our children would be drinking from separate water fountains. The 14th Amendment would not tolerate those events, nor should they tolerate discrimination against gays and lesbians.
by Jim Schaefer 12:00 PM
We at times, have lost our footing, and sometimes our humanity. We rely on federal courts, sometimes, to tell us there are no second-class citizens in our country.
by Jim Schaefer 12:01 PM
 
2013-10-16 03:05:08 PM  
...so you're saying the gays caused the slimdown?

I KNEW IT!
 
2013-10-16 03:05:18 PM  

slayer199: The Evil Home Brewer: LOL.... Wierd? Try living here. We can't decide if we are rednecks or hillbillies. All we do know is we own guns, we love pasties, we like Obama, and we are suspicious of Tea Partiers .... and Ted Nugent lives here.

Pretty scary mix overall.... But still not worthy of a FARK Michigan tag

I do live in Michigan...which is why I said it was weird.  We have Detroit, and then we have the downriver rednecks next door to Detroit.  We have the one of the largest Arabic populations in the country, yet no terrorist attacks (of course, what would you attack?  Detroit looks like it's already been bombed).  It's an odd state politically...solidly Blue for Presidential and Senate elections....solidly red within the state House and Senate.  It's strange.

Ted Nugent no longer lives in Michigan...he moved to Texas some years ago (but I think his hunting store in Jackson is still around).


Yes..... Detroit is a shell of its former greatness. Mayor Coleman Young may have been corrupt.... But he kept Detroit running. The Arabic community? Great people overall... Never had any issues with any of them.... nor were there issues within the community at all.

Ted no longer lives here? Nice..... I missed that memo. If Bo Schembeckler could own a pizza place in Columbus, OH while he was alive, Ted can own a hunting store in Jackson..... as long as he stays in Texas
 
2013-10-16 03:05:47 PM  

dywed88: I appreciate the thought.But you couldn't reference, the very appropriate, Loving v Virginia?


Nah.

I thought I'd leave that to you.
 
2013-10-16 03:07:29 PM  
Well, given that civilizatio has already collapsed in half the state and transformed it into a post-apocalyptic hellscape, exactly what further harm could legalizing gay marriage do?
 
2013-10-16 03:07:48 PM  
Let me change that slightly.....

Yes..... Detroit is a shell of its former greatness. Mayor Coleman Young may have been corrupt.... But he kept Detroit running. The Arabic community? Great people overall... Never had any issues with any of them.... nor were there issues within the community at all.
Within the Arabic community. Yes.... Detroit has enough "issues" for the entire state.... although Flint contributes their fair share. But the Arabic community kep their streets clean, their houses well tended and caused no problems for anyone while I was there.
 
2013-10-16 03:08:09 PM  

timujin: Live blog of the ruling:
http://live.freep.com/Event/Live_blog_Michigan_judge_expected_to_rul e_ on_gay_marriage_ban


These are the arguments---it seems. Not the judge's remarks.
 
2013-10-16 03:10:14 PM  

AngryDragon: Benevolent Misanthrope: AngryDragon: This was the only good thing about the shutdown.  I didn't have to hear about gay marriage for a while.  I may get gay married just to spite the retards who are still making this an issue.  My girlfriend may not approve though.

It's happening, you lost, get over it.

Gyrfalcon: Nobody cares anymore. Deal with it.

Ummm... yeah, I care.  I care that I still can't get married in the majority of states.  I care that there are state constitutional amendments that specifically say I don't have the same rights as everyone else.  I care that leaving my home country and living as a guest worker affords me more legal protections from discrimination than staying in my beloved homeland (though that's not why I did it).  I care that the federal government has refused to do for all citizens what they did for people of color 50-60 years ago, because it might piss off religious people.

Please - if you support gay marriage, or simply are okay with it, then don't stop caring until the entire country joins the 21st century.

I don't think either of us were addressing you, I know I wasn't.  My comment was to the neanderthals who are still resisting this.  I'm happy for you guys.  Glad things are moving forward.  Seems like such a stupid thing to dig your heels in on.  I'm totally on your side.


Oh - understood.  Please don't take my post personally.

Just... also, please don't let current successes dragging the country into the modern age make you feel like the fight is over.  It's not, unfortunately.
 
2013-10-16 03:12:14 PM  
ok, national parks aren't essential government business but forced gay turtle marriage is?!  What the hell kind of slimdown is this anyhow, republicans?
 
2013-10-16 03:12:54 PM  

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: I don't have a dog in this fight.

OTOH, I did have hot buttsecks last night. So, YAY?


I'm not LGBT but somehow I give a damn.

And since I've had LGBT friends who've left Michigan partly because their spouse couldn't get benefits, wouldn't have ICU visitations, etc., I actually give quite a bit of a damn.  But congraduhorrible.

LGBT Michigan community center that deserves dollars if you have 'em:

http://www.goaffirmations.org/
 
2013-10-16 03:14:04 PM  

The Evil Home Brewer: Let me change that slightly.....

Yes..... Detroit is a shell of its former greatness. Mayor Coleman Young may have been corrupt.... But he kept Detroit running. The Arabic community? Great people overall... Never had any issues with any of them.... nor were there issues within the community at all.
Within the Arabic community. Yes.... Detroit has enough "issues" for the entire state.... although Flint contributes their fair share. But the Arabic community kep their streets clean, their houses well tended and caused no problems for anyone while I was there.


You.... should work.... on thinking... before you type.
 
2013-10-16 03:14:45 PM  
Good.  Finally.

Aside: Michigan is in no state (ha, see what I did there) to be limiting avenues of commerce.  Open up the gay marriage market - you won't be disappointed.
 
2013-10-16 03:16:11 PM  
Welcome to the 21st century Michigan!
 
2013-10-16 03:16:16 PM  

Somacandra: timujin: Live blog of the ruling:
http://live.freep.com/Event/Live_blog_Michigan_judge_expected_to_rul e_ on_gay_marriage_ban

These are the arguments---it seems. Not the judge's remarks.


Yes, sorry, I used the wording from the link itself.  This is currently the arguments being presented by the attorney, Carole Stanyar.
 
2013-10-16 03:19:03 PM  
And if this passes, I'm totally going by the courthouse on my way home from work to join the festivities.  Our clerk is cool and apparently at least two dozen couples are already waiting.  Here's hoping.

I don't even have the slightest rush to get married unless it makes financial/legal sense  (so not til the SO and I buy a house or property, probably) but at least I get that choice.

Here's hoping Michigan can be progressive for once.  It'd be a nice change of pace from recent developments.
 
2013-10-16 03:21:27 PM  

timujin: Live blog of the ruling:
http://live.freep.com/Event/Live_blog_Michigan_judge_expected_to_rul e_ on_gay_marriage_ban

As of now, the latest is:
She quotes from another case, if discrimination would be allowed, our children would be drinking from separate water fountains. The 14th Amendment would not tolerate those events, nor should they tolerate discrimination against gays and lesbians.
by Jim Schaefer 12:00 PM
We at times, have lost our footing, and sometimes our humanity. We rely on federal courts, sometimes, to tell us there are no second-class citizens in our country.
by Jim Schaefer 12:01 PM


Thanks for the link


The Supreme Court has provided guidance for this court, Stanyar says.

Good sign....
 
2013-10-16 03:23:54 PM  
It always looked like a hand grabbing a weird penis. Now I can imagine a ring around traverse city.
 
2013-10-16 03:23:56 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: AngryDragon: This was the only good thing about the shutdown.  I didn't have to hear about gay marriage for a while.  I may get gay married just to spite the retards who are still making this an issue.  My girlfriend may not approve though.

It's happening, you lost, get over it.

Gyrfalcon: Nobody cares anymore. Deal with it.

Ummm... yeah, I care.  I care that I still can't get married in the majority of states.  I care that there are state constitutional amendments that specifically say I don't have the same rights as everyone else.  I care that leaving my home country and living as a guest worker affords me more legal protections from discrimination than staying in my beloved homeland (though that's not why I did it).  I care that the federal government has refused to do for all citizens what they did for people of color 50-60 years ago, because it might piss off religious people.

Please - if you support gay marriage, or simply are okay with it, then don't stop caring until the entire country joins the 21st century.


Support is a strong word for what I feel.

Against the state. Therefore, against all forms of civil marriage.
On the other hand, pro gay agenda and its subversion of American culture. Therfoere, pro any victories they acheive.
Sorta leaves me in an awkward not quite celebratory mood over these things.

Oh well, good luck anyway.
 
2013-10-16 03:24:02 PM  
You better straighten up your shiat pussy, baby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT1AHDjzcsQ
 
2013-10-16 03:28:39 PM  

thecpt: It always looked like a hand grabbing a weird penis. Now I can imagine a ring around traverse city.


Um... I think that says more about you than the state.

/Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice
 
2013-10-16 03:30:49 PM  
But he can't grant the motions today.
 Dammit.
 
2013-10-16 03:32:00 PM  
slayer199: Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.

I hope so because you are right, politically Michigan is one friggin' weird state.

And I don't feel comfortable living in a state that bans same-sex marriage - it's too stupid.
 
2013-10-16 03:34:39 PM  
Damnit, a trial set for Feb 25th.  Well, more waiting.
 
2013-10-16 03:35:28 PM  
No summary judgment for either side today. Friedman will hold a trial on the issue, starting Feb. 25.

Probably was too much to hope for, getting a ruling today...
 
2013-10-16 03:39:26 PM  
The state argues there are "legitimate state interests" in defining marriage as such.
"Michigan supports natural procreation and recognizes that children benefit from being raised by parents of each sex who can then serve as role models of the sexes both individually and together in matrimony," the state has argued in court documents. "That's why the Michigan legislature passed a law making it a felony to be a single parent."
 
2013-10-16 03:41:32 PM  
While it being overturned(if I am to believe the analysis I've seen) is great news, it also gives me a sad about NJ. We were one of the first states to have civil unions, and we've still not at full equality.
 
2013-10-16 03:42:10 PM  
February 25th?  dammit!

browneye: slayer199: Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.

I hope so because you are right, politically Michigan is one friggin' weird state.

And I don't feel comfortable living in a state that bans same-sex marriage - it's too stupid.


We're mostly a blue state (nationally, president and senators) that is purple on governors (not too unusual) and gerrymandered to f--k and back so we're reddish on US congress and Lansing senators and reps.  And we've got born and raised union in the SE corner, one of the richest counties in the country (including one of the poorest large cities in the state within its borders), a bible belt on the west side and Blue Dog Democrats/Republican Equivalents in the UP.

It's fun.

I agree with you completely on your last point, though.
 
2013-10-16 03:45:11 PM  
Both dads are willing to give up their kids for adoption? We're missing out on the best part of this story.
 
2013-10-16 03:45:15 PM  
It's all fun and games until a Wolverine gay-marries a Buckeye.
 
2013-10-16 03:46:28 PM  

wxboy: No summary judgment for either side today. Friedman will hold a trial on the issue, starting Feb. 25.

Probably was too much to hope for, getting a ruling today...


Probably going to have to sit through appeals court and potentially SC before anything happens anyways.
 
2013-10-16 03:47:00 PM  
Hopefully the will of the people is upheld today.   Activist judges legislating from the bench is the province of liberals, and I've been very happy with the direction my home state has been going lately.  This would be a huge step backwards.

Similarly, if the people had voted in favor of gay marriage, I would be supporting their fight to not have a judiciary overrule them.  Suck on that, libs that are butthurt by the first paragraph of my post.
 
2013-10-16 03:47:32 PM  

wxboy: No summary judgment for either side today. Friedman will hold a trial on the issue, starting Feb. 25....Probably was too much to hope for, getting a ruling today...


I don't think its that bad to get a trial. That way you might get a finding of fact (as well as a conclusion of law) that would be useful down the road as well.
 
2013-10-16 03:47:59 PM  
It's due diligence on the judge's part. Whichever way it goes, he doesn't want to be overturned on a technicality.
by Noel Siksai


I can begrudgingly understand this comment.

On the plus side, I now have time to make a fabulous rainbow version "Yes, Michigan!" on a t-shirt.

/the feeeeeling's foreeeeever... (youtube)
 
2013-10-16 03:48:28 PM  

Theaetetus: The state argues there are "legitimate state interests" in defining marriage as such.
"Michigan supports natural procreation and recognizes that children benefit from being raised by parents of each sex who can then serve as role models of the sexes both individually and together in matrimony," the state has argued in court documents. "That's why the Michigan legislature passed a law making it a felony to be a single parent."


You cut it off too soon:

Adoption, unwed couples having children, and undergoing any form of fertility treatment are now all class 2 felonies. Divorce has been banned.
 
2013-10-16 03:48:55 PM  

Phineas: Suck on that, libs


"Libs" is so 2006. The new hotness is "Libulardos."

/get with the times
 
2013-10-16 03:49:06 PM  

Phineas: Hopefully the will of the people is upheld today.   Activist judges legislating from the bench is the province of liberals, and I've been very happy with the direction my home state has been going lately.  This would be a huge step backwards.

Similarly, if the people had voted in favor of gay marriage, I would be supporting their fight to not have a judiciary overrule them.  Suck on that, libs that are butthurt by the first paragraph of my post.


Tyranny of the majority.
 
2013-10-16 03:51:42 PM  
pfft.. who cares?  seriously that topic is so last year that if everyone just ignored these "announcements" that just serve to troll the morons against it.. it would be legal in every state by now.
 
2013-10-16 03:57:10 PM  

hubiestubert: Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what anyone else has on their plates...


Bad analogy.  For most people, that conjures up memories of a time when you didn't have a choice about what was on your plate, or whether you would eat it.

And even afterwards there are "food evangelists" who refuse to believe that you really don't like zucchinni/broccoli/raw fish/tripe/whatever and once you've had it the way they prepare it you'll just love it.
 
2013-10-16 04:04:11 PM  

flondrix: hubiestubert: Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what anyone else has on their plates...

Bad analogy.  For most people, that conjures up memories of a time when you didn't have a choice about what was on your plate, or whether you would eat it.

And even afterwards there are "food evangelists" who refuse to believe that you really don't like zucchinni/broccoli/raw fish/tripe/whatever and once you've had it the way they prepare it you'll just love it.


I don't know if it is such a bad analogy. There is this guy at work who keeps telling me "try it, you will like it this time." It's been 37 times now and I still don't like blowing him. I am starting to wonder if I ever will.
 
2013-10-16 04:04:52 PM  
Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.  Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.  Why is the government in the business of granting subsidies and tax benefits or anything of that nature to people just because they are married?   Why should the government be telling who can and can't get married?   


That's what doesn't add up to me.  I don't care if you like the poon or the peen...
 
2013-10-16 04:07:07 PM  

AngryDragon: This was the only good thing about the shutdown. I didn't have to hear about gay marriage for a while. I may get gay married just to spite the retards who are still making this an issue. My girlfriend may not approve though.


Let her watch.
 
2013-10-16 04:09:00 PM  
Michigan has a gay marriage ban? Seriously? I bet Michiganders are all red in the face now about that. "It was the early 2000s, it seemed like the thing to do at the time." Yeah, you should just file that away with your Hoobastank CD.
 
2013-10-16 04:10:11 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits... have hospital visitation... adopt a kid? Yep... they sure should...


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.


Well, since a BF and GF who live together cannot collect death benefits, have hospital visitation, or adopt a child together, sounds like you don't want anyone to be able to do those things.
 
2013-10-16 04:11:03 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.


They can if they get married, idiot.
 
2013-10-16 04:11:30 PM  

Dr._Michael_Hfuhruhurr: I don't have a dog in this fight.

OTOH, I did have hot buttsecks last night. So, YAY?



Life will pound away
Where the light don't shine, son
Take it like a man
 
2013-10-16 04:11:37 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.  Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.  Why is the government in the business of granting subsidies and tax benefits or anything of that nature to people just because they are married?   Why should the government be telling who can and can't get married?   


That's what doesn't add up to me.  I don't care if you like the poon or the peen...


Married couples are more stable, and support one another better/longer than unmarried couples. That cuts down on the government's need to take care of people who don't have a family support network. The subsidy probably pays for itself and then some. If you're so uncommitted that you won't go get the piece of paper, then you probably aren't going to last as a couple as long as married people do on average.
 
2013-10-16 04:15:53 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: And we've got born and raised union in the SE corner, one of the richest counties in the country (including one of the poorest large cities in the state within its borders), a bible belt on the west side and Blue Dog Democrats/Republican Equivalents in the UP


That city is poor because the source of the wealth--the auto industry--has gone elsewhere.  How does the county around it remain rich?  Even if some people managed to hold on to the money they made during the boom times, wouldn't they just take that money somewhere nicer once the area became all depressing and icky?
 
2013-10-16 04:17:00 PM  

flondrix: Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits... have hospital visitation... adopt a kid? Yep... they sure should...


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.

Well, since a BF and GF who live together cannot collect death benefits, have hospital visitation, or adopt a child together, sounds like you don't want anyone to be able to do those things.


Well, he did actually say that.  In a pretty stupid manner perhaps but that seemed to be his point.
 
2013-10-16 04:18:12 PM  

lennavan: flondrix: Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits... have hospital visitation... adopt a kid? Yep... they sure should...


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get? I don't believe so. Nor do I believe that straight married couples should.

Well, since a BF and GF who live together cannot collect death benefits, have hospital visitation, or adopt a child together, sounds like you don't want anyone to be able to do those things.

Well, he did actually say that.  In a pretty stupid manner perhaps but that seemed to be his point.


Wait whoops, I mean he said he didn't want anyone to have the tax breaks thing.  He wants everyone to have the visitation/adopt/benefits bit.  You know what, forget it, I wasn't here.
 
2013-10-16 04:18:31 PM  

Phineas: Hopefully the will of the people is upheld today.   Activist judges legislating from the bench is the province of liberals, and I've been very happy with the direction my home state has been going lately.  This would be a huge step backwards.

Similarly, if the people had voted in favor of gay marriage, I would be supporting their fight to not have a judiciary overrule them.  Suck on that, libs that are butthurt by the first paragraph of my post.


I am sure you would be fully in support of the public voting for a law that requires everyone to punch you in the face. After all the people support it.
 
2013-10-16 04:18:40 PM  

flondrix: hubiestubert: Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what anyone else has on their plates...

Bad analogy.  For most people, that conjures up memories of a time when you didn't have a choice about what was on your plate, or whether you would eat it.

And even afterwards there are "food evangelists" who refuse to believe that you really don't like zucchinni/broccoli/raw fish/tripe/whatever and once you've had it the way they prepare it you'll just love it.


Something something EABOD (EAPOD?) something....
 
2013-10-16 04:24:16 PM  

mbillips: Michigan has a gay marriage ban? Seriously? I bet Michiganders are all red in the face now about that. "It was the early 2000s, it seemed like the thing to do at the time." Yeah, you should just file that away with your Hoobastank CD.


Yeah, well, most of us who were agin' it aren't red in the face with embarrassment.  Personally I'm still pissed off when I remember how ignorance and out of state organizing monies pulled that off (Family Research Council threw down a LOT, and some backing from the f--king Catholic church, and that's when I cut my ties to "would go to mass when visiting with Mom" to "once a year plus funerals, weddings, or baptisms").

I lived in a college town bubble at the time and was honestly floored when it passed (hell, the Catholic church I sometimes attended had a LGBT support/rights group, still do probably).  My friends and I all wore black and grey the next day because what the hell else could we do.

Dubya got re-elected that same day too.  We didn't vote for him in Michigan, though.
 
2013-10-16 04:26:06 PM  
slayer199: "It's an odd state politically"

It's only 'odd' if you subscribe to political team sports.
A gay marriage ban was a 'gimme' in Michigan, due to so many of the sub-groups being very socially conservative.
Do you really think large swaths of Detroit and Dearborn are voting for gay marriage just because they vote Dem, nationally?
Not to mention Michigan's shrinking populations of the college educated and youth, as people have been moving elsewhere to find jobs for some time.

It remains damn near a miracle that medical marijuana went through. (And that, I'd bet, only because the suburban conservatives have been watching their parents deal with the diseases of age and reading articles about a hit from a vaporizer conveying more quality-of-life than a fistful of prescription pills, at a fraction of the price.)
 
2013-10-16 04:40:55 PM  
Semantic Warrior:
Honestly, while I support marriage between any two legally consenting individuals, I'm not sure if I agree that the Feds are allowed to intervene...

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment says hello.
 
2013-10-16 04:46:15 PM  
Postponed until February 25th? WTF?
 
2013-10-16 04:59:40 PM  
It is a pity that the SCOTUS didn't issue a broader ruling. On the other hand, given that much of a generation has died off since 2004, I suspect an anti-gay provision wouldn't pass today. Not saying all of the bigots and wowsers are old, but a majority of the ancients are intolerant, un-christian, inflexible, and bigoted. And they use the Bible as an excuse.
 
2013-10-16 05:01:23 PM  

slayer199: Michigan is so weird.  In a lot of ways, it's a blue state...and in things like this it's red.  It should be overturned today which is good news.


Having grown up there:

Detroit is BLUE.
Ann Arbor is also BLUE.  (In a state where Romney pissed off everybody, and Obama won by 449K out of 4.5 Million votes cast, Wayne + Washtenaw counties were 446K of that 449K (for about 900K voters).)
Oakland and Macomb counties are lightly blue, but could be convinced to go pink if the Republican isn't insane (See Snyder's first election).  Also, they're pissed at Democratic corruption and despise Detroit.

The rest of the state is somewhat red.  There's county-level exceptions, but the population doesn't matter (UP's pretty blue, but UP is only 300K people total).

So if you can get into a state where the Republican is seen as sane and the Democrat is seen as corrupt, that vast, over-represented, majority is able to show up, get the suburbs on their side, and win.  Otherwise, the Democrats win.  Combine this with the somewhat laid-back attitudes common to the midwest (For example, I honestly don't care whether the gays can marry.  I don't see why not, but I'm not going to go out and actively lobby for it.  There's no real skin off my back either way), and:

Hardcore R vs. hardcore D = R's win.
R vs D where the suburbs actually CARE and throw in with the D's = D's win.
R vs D where it's about poor black folks, corruption, and/or Detroit = R's win in a landslide.
 
2013-10-16 05:03:35 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
From Wikipedia:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#fi l e

Shown in Dark Blue: The United States of Canada
Shown in Gray: Jesusland, aka Rocky the Flying Squirrel

Lookit, his little blue eyes and his baby blue cap! He's qwazy!
 
2013-10-16 05:04:11 PM  
StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.
 
2013-10-16 05:04:45 PM  

ringersol: It's only 'odd' if you subscribe to political team sports.
A gay marriage ban was a 'gimme' in Michigan, due to so many of the sub-groups being very socially conservative.
Do you really think large swaths of Detroit and Dearborn are voting for gay marriage just because they vote Dem, nationally?
Not to mention Michigan's shrinking populations of the college educated and youth, as people have been moving elsewhere to find jobs for some time.

It remains damn near a miracle that medical marijuana went through. (And that, I'd bet, only because the suburban conservatives have been watching their parents deal with the diseases of age and reading articles about a hit from a vaporizer conveying more quality-of-life than a fistful of prescription pills, at a fraction of the price.)


I don't subscribe to either teams' politics.

As for medical marijuana...that's a no brainer.  In fact, now that a majority of the US Population supports outright legalization, I would expect it to be legal to possess and use in the next 10 years (that number will only go up).
 
2013-10-16 05:10:58 PM  
The above map proves that cute little Red Squirrels make you liberal, big nasty Black/Gray Squirrels make you conservative. Must have something to do with eating squirrels and getting Mad Squirrel Disease.

I believe that was the theme of Le Rouge and Le Noir by Stendhal, or maybe I'm think of The Adventures of Chatterer the Red Squirrel  by Thorton W. Burgess.

Chit, chit, chit, chit, chit, chit, chit. That's squirrel for "Hey, you kids! Get off of my lawn!"
 
2013-10-16 05:13:35 PM  

Phineas: StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.


What is women's suffrage?
What is inter-racial marriage?
What is freedom of non-Christian religions?
What is desegregation of schools?
What is abolition?
What is freedom of unpopular speech?
What is freedom of assembly of unpopular groups?
What is freedom of the press to print unpopular opinions?
What is freedom to own guns?
What is gay marriage?
 
2013-10-16 05:14:54 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: We're mostly a blue state (nationally, president and senators) that is purple on governors (not too unusual) and gerrymandered to f--k and back so we're reddish on US congress and Lansing senators and reps.  And we've got born and raised union in the SE corner, one of the richest counties in the country (including one of the poorest large cities in the state within its borders), a bible belt on the west side and Blue Dog Democrats/Republican Equivalents in the UP.


meyerkev: Detroit is BLUE.
Ann Arbor is also BLUE.  (In a state where Romney pissed off everybody, and Obama won by 449K out of 4.5 Million votes cast, Wayne + Washtenaw counties were 446K of that 449K (for about 900K voters).)
Oakland and Macomb counties are lightly blue, but could be convinced to go pink if the Republican isn't insane (See Snyder's first election).  Also, they're pissed at Democratic corruption and despise Detroit.


Yes, we're gerrymandered.  But Detroit is really blue, and surrounded by lightly blue suburbs which makes for a few nice, safe Democratic majority districts while the rest of the state is able to go be somewhat red.

Combine this with the fact that the state-level Republican party is as a whole generally sane and/or realist (Note that they didn't screw with the unions until after the unions had gotten most of the blame for destroying the auto industry in 2008), and the bit where you end up with a lot of people who vote R on the state level (because they're sane and the D's are corrupt) and D on the national level (because the national Republicans are crazy) and I'm not surprised that a state that voted for Obama by 10 points also sent 9R, 5D.  The political geography supports it.

/And then the state R's nominate Pete Hoekstra, and everyone votes Democrat for a cycle to say "Hey, maybe that's too crazy and openly racist".
 
2013-10-16 05:15:18 PM  

brantgoose: [upload.wikimedia.org image 800x411]
From Wikipedia:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_marriage-equality_laws.svg#fi l e

Shown in Dark Blue: The United States of Canada
Shown in Gray: Jesusland, aka Rocky the Flying Squirrel

Lookit, his little blue eyes and his baby blue cap! He's qwazy!


New Jersey does not belong in Jesusland, tyvm.
 
2013-10-16 05:22:26 PM  

natazha: It is a pity that the SCOTUS didn't issue a broader ruling. On the other hand, given that much of a generation has died off since 2004, I suspect an anti-gay provision wouldn't pass today. Not saying all of the bigots and wowsers are old, but a majority of the ancients are intolerant, un-christian, inflexible, and bigoted. And they use the Bible as an excuse.


I dunno. Its been what, 60 years since a major expansion of civil rights has been won without running to the courts? The "let the states decide. Also, no backsies" ruling could be a godsend for the left, tactically speaking. 50 reasonably winnable fights that stay won and help develop organizational skills and divert activist thought away from rules lawyering your opponent out of the game and towards dealing outright defeats.
 
2013-10-16 05:28:16 PM  

soporific: Phineas: StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.

What is women's suffrage?
What is inter-racial marriage?
What is freedom of non-Christian religions?
What is desegregation of schools?
What is abolition?
What is freedom of unpopular speech?
What is freedom of assembly of unpopular groups?
What is freedom of the press to print unpopular opinions?
What is freedom to own guns?
What is gay marriage?


Oh cool, a list of constitutional rights and false equivalancies.   Wait was that supposed to convince me of something?  Or make some kind of point?

 In order for me to accept your premise that gay marriage should be added to that list, I would first have to concede that it's equivalent in nature to someone being denied a basic human right.   Being denied access to a societal construct is not the same as being denied access to a basic human right, despite what your TV, internet, and libruhl friends, teachers, and/or parents might be telling you.
 
2013-10-16 05:31:54 PM  

Phineas: soporific: Phineas: StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.

What is women's suffrage?
What is inter-racial marriage?
What is freedom of non-Christian religions?
What is desegregation of schools?
What is abolition?
What is freedom of unpopular speech?
What is freedom of assembly of unpopular groups?
What is freedom of the press to print unpopular opinions?
What is freedom to own guns?
What is gay marriage?

Oh cool, a list of constitutional rights and false equivalancies.   Wait was that supposed to convince me of something?  Or make some kind of point?

 In order for me to accept your premise that gay marriage should be added to that list, I would first have to concede that it's equivalent in nature to someone being denied a basic human right.   Being denied access to a societal construct is not the same as being denied access to a basic human right, despite what your TV, internet, and libruhl friends, teachers, and/or parents might be telling you.


I notice that you're not complaining about interracial marriage being on there. What's so different about gay marriage?
 
2013-10-16 05:33:47 PM  

Phineas: soporific: Phineas: StreetlightInTheGhetto:

Tyranny of the majority.

I'll take "Things people reference when they realize their opinions are not held by the majority of society" for $1,000, Alex.

What is women's suffrage?
What is inter-racial marriage?
What is freedom of non-Christian religions?
What is desegregation of schools?
What is abolition?
What is freedom of unpopular speech?
What is freedom of assembly of unpopular groups?
What is freedom of the press to print unpopular opinions?
What is freedom to own guns?
What is gay marriage?

Oh cool, a list of constitutional rights and false equivalancies.   Wait was that supposed to convince me of something?  Or make some kind of point?

 In order for me to accept your premise that gay marriage should be added to that list, I would first have to concede that it's equivalent in nature to someone being denied a basic human right.   Being denied access to a societal construct is not the same as being denied access to a basic human right, despite what your TV, internet, and libruhl friends, teachers, and/or parents might be telling you.


So it's okay then to deny interracial couples the right to marry, since they have no inherent right to a "societal construct"?
 
2013-10-16 05:34:22 PM  
man, I gotta hit refresh before posting.
 
2013-10-16 05:49:57 PM  
timujin:

So it's okay then to deny interracial couples the right to marry, since they have no inherent right to a "societal construct"?

Unless someone is being denied the right to eat, drink, live, vote, work, or love, I have a hard time caring about it.   If a society wants to define the standards of its own constructs, they should be free to do so, unless it means depriving someone from any of the things I listed in my first sentence.
 
2013-10-16 06:01:47 PM  

Phineas: Being denied access to a societal construct is not the same as being denied access to a basic human right, despite what your TV, internet, and libruhl friends, teachers, and/or parents might be telling you.


Marriage is a basic human right. Same-sex marriage is no less a basic right than inter-racial marriage and heterosexual marriage.

As for everything else, they are all rights protected by the Constitution, and whether something is constitutional doesn't depend on whether something is popular. The WBC's right to protest funerals isn't popular, but it's constitutional. So is flag burning.

This is America, where the majority must give way to the Constitution.
 
2013-10-16 06:08:24 PM  

Phineas: timujin:

So it's okay then to deny interracial couples the right to marry, since they have no inherent right to a "societal construct"?

Unless someone is being denied the right to eat, drink, live, vote, work, or love, I have a hard time caring about it.   If a society wants to define the standards of its own constructs, they should be free to do so, unless it means depriving someone from any of the things I listed in my first sentence.


Two hundred plus years ago, our society decided to adhere to the Constituion. And since our society decided to adhere to the Constitution, it must accept the fact that the majority will be over-ruled by the Constitution when it tramples on the rights of the minority.

Marriage is a Constitutional right, and it doesn't matter how many people vote to deny gay couples the right to marry. In this country, you can't vote away constitutional rights. That's not how it works.

It doesn't matter whether you care about it. You are welcome to live in your own little bubble and be as wrong as you like, because the Constitution protects your right to do so.
 
2013-10-16 06:13:18 PM  

Phineas: timujin:

So it's okay then to deny interracial couples the right to marry, since they have no inherent right to a "societal construct"?

Unless someone is being denied the right to eat, drink, live, vote, work, or love, I have a hard time caring about it.   If a society wants to define the standards of its own constructs, they should be free to do so, unless it means depriving someone from any of the things I listed in my first sentence.


Are you married?
 
2013-10-16 06:21:51 PM  
Since its just the 3 of us left in here, i'll address both of you at the same time.

Nope, not married.

And I don't believe that the 'right to marriage' is in the Constituion, and your claim that it is a 'human right' is completely opnion-based and not fact-based.  I see that the U.N. has defined marriage as a human right, but   1) LOL @ the U.N.   and  2)  there's no way that it will ever define it in such a way that it allows same-sex marriage.  This leaves us to define it, as a society, at the voting booth, which we have done.  If we'd like to revisit it every year or every 4 years at the state level, i really don't care.  But i'm not going to buy into the premise that it's a human right, and that the manner in which we define this societal construct can be dictated by anyone employed  in a legislative or judicial capacity.

It doesn't matter that you're wrong about it being a human right, you are welcome to live in your own little bubble and be as wrong as you like, because the Constitution protects your right to do so.
 
2013-10-16 06:23:43 PM  
Good. I miss my homeland. It's about time they did something right that doesn't include hoppy beer.
 
2013-10-16 06:31:52 PM  

Phineas: Since its just the 3 of us left in here, i'll address both of you at the same time.

Nope, not married.


Alright.  That wasn't a "gotcha" question, but it would perhaps help to highlight the rights that are derived from the marriage contract.  There are things that marriage allows, like visitation, tax benefits, and others, that same-sex couples get and opposite-sex couples don't.  It's unjust to give a right to one and not all, equal protection under the law and all that.
 
2013-10-16 06:44:31 PM  

timujin: Phineas: Since its just the 3 of us left in here, i'll address both of you at the same time.

Nope, not married.

Alright.  That wasn't a "gotcha" question, but it would perhaps help to highlight the rights that are derived from the marriage contract.  There are things that marriage allows, like visitation, tax benefits, and others, that same-sex couples get and opposite-sex couples don't.  It's unjust to give a right to one and not all, equal protection under the law and all that.


Are visitation rights, tax breaks, and 'others'  rights that are protected by the Constitution?  Are visitaion rights and tax breaks considered 'human rights'?   I don't see where them being denied access to things that aren't defined in the Constitution contitutes a violation of law.  Prove to me that someone's human rights (TRUE human rights, not libruhl  pseudo-human rights) are being violated, and I will agree with you that the legislative or judicial branches need to override the will of the people.

On a side note, I honestly don't care if same-sex marriage exists, I'm more concerned about whether or not the judiciary is allowed to define something that I believe should be defined at the voting booth.
 
2013-10-16 06:50:10 PM  

Phineas: timujin: Phineas: Since its just the 3 of us left in here, i'll address both of you at the same time.

Nope, not married.

Alright.  That wasn't a "gotcha" question, but it would perhaps help to highlight the rights that are derived from the marriage contract.  There are things that marriage allows, like visitation, tax benefits, and others, that same-sex couples get and opposite-sex couples don't.  It's unjust to give a right to one and not all, equal protection under the law and all that.

Are visitation rights, tax breaks, and 'others'  rights that are protected by the Constitution?  Are visitaion rights and tax breaks considered 'human rights'?   I don't see where them being denied access to things that aren't defined in the Constitution contitutes a violation of law.  Prove to me that someone's human rights (TRUE human rights, not libruhl  pseudo-human rights) are being violated, and I will agree with you that the legislative or judicial branches need to override the will of the people.

On a side note, I honestly don't care if same-sex marriage exists, I'm more concerned about whether or not the judiciary is allowed to define something that I believe should be defined at the voting booth.


The Constitution doesn't define every law, that would be ridiculous, but it does provide for equal protection under the law.  If you grant one group a right through the law, then that right must be universally applied.  That's where the Constitution comes in.
 
2013-10-16 06:59:39 PM  

Phineas: timujin: Phineas: Since its just the 3 of us left in here, i'll address both of you at the same time.

Nope, not married.

Alright.  That wasn't a "gotcha" question, but it would perhaps help to highlight the rights that are derived from the marriage contract.  There are things that marriage allows, like visitation, tax benefits, and others, that same-sex couples get and opposite-sex couples don't.  It's unjust to give a right to one and not all, equal protection under the law and all that.

Are visitation rights, tax breaks, and 'others'  rights that are protected by the Constitution?  Are visitaion rights and tax breaks considered 'human rights'?   I don't see where them being denied access to things that aren't defined in the Constitution contitutes a violation of law.  Prove to me that someone's human rights (TRUE human rights, not libruhl  pseudo-human rights) are being violated, and I will agree with you that the legislative or judicial branches need to override the will of the people.

On a side note, I honestly don't care if same-sex marriage exists, I'm more concerned about whether or not the judiciary is allowed to define something that I believe should be defined at the voting booth.


I would say the right to be treated equally under the law is about as basic as rights get.

And some people do not have equal treatment under current laws because of numerous laws that apply to married couple.
 
2013-10-16 07:09:44 PM  
Speaking as a Flintoid here, yep, Detroit sux, a lot of the rest of the state, starting right here in my own little burg is a hellhole. Yep, we like our guns. Know why though? At least for those of us here in Flint, it's because we don't have sufficient police to protect us so we tend to take care of things ourselves. NOBODY should have to have a non-response for a home break-in yet we get that every day.

When it comes to teh geys...personally, I hope they DO get the right to marry! Why the hell should we get all the grief...I mean FUN! Besides, both my son and my favorite sister in law are gay and they deserve the same rights as the rest of us...

Whether or not this is something that should be constitutional, well, it's hard to say. As has been said above, we're such a weird state that we do things all bass ackwards and exspect everyone else to understand.
 
2013-10-16 07:15:49 PM  

Phineas: I'm more concerned about whether or not the judiciary is allowed to define something that I believe should be defined at the voting booth.


Flag burning is not mentioned in the Constitution, but it is protected. Freedom of expression doesn't get decided at the voting booth.

There are many things that voters don't get to decide, and equal access to the rights and privledges of marriage is one of them. While the specific benefits of marriage may not be enumerated in the Constituion, equal access most certainly is a constitutional issue.

Sometimes the majority is wrong, and the Constitution provides safeguards against tyranny of the majority. That's how it works.
 
2013-10-16 08:41:33 PM  
Discriminating against gays doesn't make any more sense than discriminating against black people. I notice the judge is using the "rational basis" level of scrutiny, but the anti-gay laws fail even at that level.
 
2013-10-17 12:02:52 AM  
Minor follow-up:  Regardless of how this case ends, it looks like people are trying to get a referendum to repeal the ban on the state ballot for 2016.
 
2013-10-17 12:32:23 AM  
Great news for Red Wings fans.
 
2013-10-17 08:50:26 AM  

jst3p: Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.

They can if they get married, idiot.


I just said they shouldn't have to get married.  Note the part after where I said "neither should straight married couples".  I guess you can't read so well.  Register their domestic partner and voila.  Classy on the name calling though.
 
2013-10-17 09:25:17 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: You hear that Tea Partiers?  We're destroying your country.  And we're ENJOYING it.


Village idiots gonna be village idiots . Instead of treating mental illness lets make it legal for them to get married .
 
2013-10-17 10:58:48 AM  

Mr.BobDobalita: jst3p: Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.

They can if they get married, idiot.

I just said they shouldn't have to get married.  Note the part after where I said "neither should straight married couples".  I guess you can't read so well.  Register their domestic partner and voila.  Classy on the name calling though.


So you want them to get married, just use a different name?
 
2013-10-17 12:16:37 PM  

Mr.BobDobalita: jst3p: Mr.BobDobalita: Should 2 homos who are partners be able to do things like collect death benefits...  have hospital visitation...  adopt a kid?   Yep... they sure should...   


But should they be able to get tax benefits or health care or other things that a BF and GF who live together cannot get?   I don't believe so.

They can if they get married, idiot.

I just said they shouldn't have to get married.  Note the part after where I said "neither should straight married couples".  I guess you can't read so well.  Register their domestic partner and voila.  Classy on the name calling though.


Thing is, registering as a domestic partner doesn't guarantee you the same rights as marriage when it comes to things like death benefits, adoption and hospital visitation.  Separate but equal isn't equal.
 
2013-10-17 12:50:09 PM  
We don't want anybody living in Michigan to reproduce anyway.
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report