Michigan may be No. 10 in the same-sex marriage sweepstakes.
It's interesting that it's the judge who suggested challenging the marriage ban. It's also interesting that the judge is a Reagan appointee. (Although the political party of those on the bench hasn't seemed to have made much difference in these cases.)
The "potential legal chaos" argument is funny -- as in, that's all you can come up with? Seems to me it would clean up a lot of issues in Michigan's family laws. And the best the state can come up with is the same tired old arguments that have failed in every case so far:
Yeah, sure. None of those "interests" has anything to do with excluding same-sex couples from marriage. It would be refreshing if one of these briefs had some contact with reality, instead of being based on someone's personal prejudices.
Two Detroit-area nurses filed a lawsuit to try to overturn restrictions on adoption by same-sex partners. But at the judge's invitation, the case took an extraordinary turn and now will test the legality of a 2004 constitutional amendment that stipulates Michigan only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman will hear arguments in the case Thursday at a Detroit law school, although he hasn't indicated when he'll make a ruling. If he concludes the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution, gay-marriage supporters say same-sex couples would immediately be allowed to wed and adopt children.
State officials, however, predict "potential legal chaos" if the judge throws out the gay marriage ban.
It's interesting that it's the judge who suggested challenging the marriage ban. It's also interesting that the judge is a Reagan appointee. (Although the political party of those on the bench hasn't seemed to have made much difference in these cases.)
The "potential legal chaos" argument is funny -- as in, that's all you can come up with? Seems to me it would clean up a lot of issues in Michigan's family laws. And the best the state can come up with is the same tired old arguments that have failed in every case so far:
In a court filing, the Michigan attorney general's office said there's no "fundamental right to same-sex marriage."
"Michigan's marriage amendment bears a reasonable relation to legitimate state interests," the state said. "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. Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing there is no rational basis for these legitimate state interests."
Yeah, sure. None of those "interests" has anything to do with excluding same-sex couples from marriage. It would be refreshing if one of these briefs had some contact with reality, instead of being based on someone's personal prejudices.
No comments:
Post a Comment