Same-Sex Marriage Ban Reinstated in Michigan

same-sex marriageJust a day after Michigan lifted a ban on same-sex marriage, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had the ban reinstated until Wednesday. The turn around on the issue is the result of Michigan Attorney General Bill Shuette who filed an emergency request to have the order stayed and appealed. This development leaves the legality of same-sex marriages that took place over the weekend up in the air.

Shuette stated that the residents of Michigan made it clear nearly a decade ago that diversity in parenting, a reference to a child having a female mother and a male father, is what they consider to be best for their children, and the voters had this decision placed into the state constitution. This brings up the issue of whether or not the federal government has the right to overrule laws created by state legislatures, which if the Constitution is upheld, it does not. The Tenth Amendment outlines the powers held by the federal government, and any of those powers not present on the list are reserved for the states. Any time the government steps over its constitutional boundaries, it is illegal. If the state has decided not to allow same-sex marriage, then the federal government must, according to the Constitution, respect that decision.

Many who participated in same-sex marriage in Michigan on Saturday are not surprised by the ban being reinstated. One of the possible ramifications for the appeal is that same-sex couples may not be eligible for full benefits, although some benefits at the federal level might still be available to them in the mean time. While some couples may fear this could result in their marriage not being legal, most feel confident that the decision will come down in their favor.

The issue of same-sex marriage is one that is hotly debated, and usually ends up in passionate arguments from individuals on both sides. The important thing to keep in mind here is not whether or not the actions taken by Shuette and the states are moral, but whether or not they are constitutionally valid. It would seem that each state has the right to draft and create legislation regulating marriage, either in favor of same-sex unions or opposed. Due to the protection provided to the states by the Tenth Amendment, the federal government should not be allowed to overturn the law put in place by the legislature in Michigan.

If same-sex couples want to have the right to get married, it looks like taking the battle to the state level would be the constitutionally recommended course of action. It is traditionally much easier to change things at the state level, as there is a lot of bureaucratic red tape to cut through when dealing with the federal government. Changing things at the state level prevents the federal government from gaining too much power over the individual states, which then results in the rights of all citizens being protected, rather than a majority being given the authority to trample the rights of the minority. The same-sex marriage ban being reinstated in Michigan is proof that this issue is not going away any time soon, and will play a large roll in political elections for years to come.

Opinion by Michael Cantrell

Sources
CNN
The Columbus Dispatch
Salon

21 Responses to "Same-Sex Marriage Ban Reinstated in Michigan"

  1. jman   March 23, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    There’s plenty of laws that were once legal and no longer are as well, so what’s your point. Man makes most laws, some just and others unjust. We’re flawed and make mistakes but guess who doesn’t? That’s right God, so I think its a safe bet to follow his laws, which r pretty good ones by the way. Maybe you’ve heard of them. All societies are based off them

    Reply
  2. jman   March 23, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    I’ve dated women of every ethnicity so what do u think? That’s a flawed argument for the record.

    Reply
  3. jman   March 23, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    What’s natural about 2 men or women participating in activities against the laws of nature. Procreation not recreation, which is the only outcome of the unnatural act of homosexuality. Sorry, but I call it like I and the majority of people see it.

    Reply
  4. jman   March 23, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    Dear Mr Rogers I refer to u as a bigot due to your intolerance of those of us (which r still the majority for the record)) who do not share your views. I’m sure u and your homosexual minions bash those of us who believe in something other than man. I would b referring to we the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim majority of not just this nation but that of this world. U can’t change God’s law friend, as much as u would like to. Last I checked, deviant behavior was never protected in the constitution.

    Reply
  5. jman   March 23, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    If it was the right of my homosexual “peers” then why is it still not legal in the majority of the states my fine feathered friends?

    Reply
    • James Rogers   March 23, 2014 at 1:24 pm

      Natural rights exist regardless of their legality.

      Reply
  6. jman   March 23, 2014 at 1:10 pm

    Let’s c how consistent u r? Answer my question about polygamy. R u for legitimising that as well? After all, they r consenting adults….. What right does the government have with them as well?????

    Reply
    • James Rogers   March 23, 2014 at 1:23 pm

      Amongst consenting adults, I have absolutely no problem with polygamy. It works for them and it doesn’t hurt me, so why would I have a problem with it? Since we’re talking about consistency, I haven’t seen you address the topic of biracial marriage. That was once illegal in several states but those states were overruled by the federal government. Do you think biracial marriages should still be banned in stated where the majority believes such a restriction is appropriate?

      Reply
  7. jman   March 23, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    No James Rogers u r the bigot. Seems to me u r towards those that share a fundamentally held belief in marriage being between a man and woman as it has always been, whether Christian, Jew, or Muslim. U hold those that don’t share your beliefs in contempt. U as well as your like minded cohorts, like to try and shame those of us who don’t share your beliefs by throwing out labels and insults. If being a person who holds strongly held convictions and morals then label away girl ; )

    Reply
    • James Rogers   March 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm

      Let me get this straight, you believe I’m a bigot because I think two consenting adults should be free to marry? That statement is entirely devoid of logic.

      As iterated previously, I hold you in contempt not because of your “strongly held” beliefs, but because you wish to place those beliefs above the fundamental rights of your peers.

      Reply
  8. jman   March 23, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    What rights r being taken from them? Civil unions give them rights, marriage gives legitimacy to their lifestyle, which last I checked would be the same as those who practice polygamy. Why not legalize those who practice that as well. What about their rights friend? After all if consenting adults practice it then who are the government or the people to deny them. And please don’t cite the supreme court as if they always get it right. Unelected judges with biases like everybody else

    Reply
  9. jman   March 23, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    I love the liberal mindset. If u don’t agree with somebody else’s beliefs then u label them a biggot, racist, fascist, close minded, intolerant etc…. Seems to me the opposite rings true with u libs. What happened to minds needing to b open like parachutes? Oh ye hypocrites : )

    Reply
    • James Rogers   March 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm

      You are certainly free to have any beliefs you wish, but you do not have the right to force those beliefs onto others. Your position is the very definition of bigotry.

      Reply
  10. Tom from Colorado   March 23, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    @Mr. Cantrell, Your understanding of the Constitution is FLAWED. If the states had the right to dictate that only a man and a woman could be married, then the states could decide that only persons of the same race could be married. The Supreme Court decided that the states could not do that latter in Loving v. Virginia, in 1967. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia). From the Constitutional viewpoint, there is NO DIFFERENCE between these two prohibitions. The 14th Amendment governs here, not the 10th.

    To me, it’s sad that so many people in Michigan are so interested in taking away the rights of others. Their time might be better spent worrying about the DECREASING INTEREST IN MARRIAGE among heterosexuals. According to a Yahoo news article in 2011, two-thirds of the mothers in Michigan in their early 20s are unmarried. Further, in 2009, 75 percent of births were to women under 25, and 40% of ALL BIRTHS were to unmarried mothers.

    The Constitution says what it says as interpreted by Supreme Court decisions. It doesn’t say whatever YOU want it to (or what I want it to for that matter).

    Reply
  11. Ryan   March 23, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    Way to go Michigan! Legislated hate really makes you a stand out.

    P.S. James Rogers: It’s not a “choice”.

    Reply
  12. jman   March 23, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    How typical. I didn’t need a crystal ball to c that coming. Again I say to u that the vote was cast and just because u don’t like the outcome and it is not your right to change it to satisfy your whims

    Reply
  13. Dazamo   March 23, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    So, using the same theory used here, the federal givernment should never have interfered with the states who outlawed biracial marriages. What a load of hogwash.

    Reply
  14. jman   March 23, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    What do think is the purpose of elections? People vote those into office whom they agree with to represent them and their interests. This is a democracy and like it or not, the majority rules as it should. This is what the majority of people of Michigan voted for so who r u to second them or to be their moral police?

    Reply
    • James Rogers   March 23, 2014 at 12:17 pm

      I take it you’re not familiar with the concept of the “tyranny of the majority”? Controlling this negative facet of a democracy (representative or otherwise) is one of the primary purposes of the judiciary.

      Reply
  15. Devin   March 23, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    “…the rights of all citizens being protected, rather than a majority being given the authority to trample the rights of the minority.”

    Sounds like a great argument for marriage equality to me!

    Reply
  16. James Rogers   March 23, 2014 at 11:47 am

    One day, we’ll look back at our society’s stance on homosexuality and wonder how we could be so incredibly cruel and shortsighted. I hope my grandchildren are born into a world in which the government does not interfere in the private lives and choices of its citizens.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.