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  
•       •       •

2510 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2013 at 2:33 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 21 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report