Quantcast


Twitter icon


Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' essays
Our forum
New essays
Other features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIANITY
Christian def'n
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Interpret the Bible
 Persons
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation 666
 Denominations
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing Religions

Non-theistic beliefs
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
Science vs. Religion
More information

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment

Same-sex marriage

Homosexuality
Human rights
Gays in the military
Nudism
Origins
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking
Stem cells
Transexuality
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Sponsored links

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Same-sex marriages (SSM) & civil unions in Michigan.

Part 11:
2014-MAR: Webmaster's thoughts. Reactions by
five Christian groups to the District Court ruling
.

horizontal rule

The acronym "LGBT" used throughout this web site refers
to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender community.

The acronym "SSM" refers to same-sex marriage.

horizontal rule

This topic is continued from the previous essay

horizontal rule

Webmaster's thoughts:

District Courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virginia have issued rulings legalizing same-sex marriage in their state. All have been stayed so that same-sex couples cannot currently be married. Professor Tobias' comment would probably imply that if one or more of these cases is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and if the Court grants certiorari -- decides to hear the appeal -- then the court would hand down its decision during 2015-JUN. We are guessing that it will be a usual 5 to 4 decision, although we don't have the foggiest idea whether the ruling will be positive or negative. It is unclear whether the ruling would be applied only to the state(s) involved or for the country as a whole. If their ruling is positive and legalized same-sex marriage across the country as the court did in 1967 for interracial marriages, it would be great timing if they handed down their ruling on a specific day: Friday, 2015-JUN-26.

That would be both:

    • The 12th anniversary of the Lawrence v. Texas ruling by the court that declared state laws criminalizing same-gender sexual behavior to be void, and unenforceable.

    • The 2nd anniversary of the Windsor v. United States ruling by the same court that declared the main section of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. That decision triggered this recent series of decisions in federal court.

Then JUN-26 could become an annual event -- a happy one for some people, and sad for others -- to recall the multi-decade fight to bring marriage equality to the United States.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

Reactions by conservative Christian sources:

  • Culture News, a conservative Christian information source, commented:

    "Late Friday, a single federal judge negated the Michigan voters' decision in 2004 to define marriage as between one man and one woman ..." 1

    Their implication seems to be that a single judge should not overrule the votes of 2.7 million citizens in Michigan who voted to approve anti-same-sex marriage amendment for the state constitution back in 2004. But that is how the federal court system works. If a single judge at a District Court perceives that a state or law or constitutional amendment violates a section of the U.S. Constitution, then it is their duty to declare the law or amendment to be unconstitutional. If either the defendant(s) or plaintiff(s) in the case is displeased with ruling, they can appeal it to a three judge panel of the area's U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If they are displeased with the three judge panel's ruling, they can appeal it to the full Court of Appeals. If they are displeased with the full court's decision, they can try to appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Before same-sex couples in Michigan could resume marrying, it is likely that three levels of federal courts involving about 20 judges and justices will be involved in the decision.

    It is important to recall that since 2013-DEC-20, five other judges in federal District Courts across the country have gone through the same process as Judge Friedman. All concluded that their local state constitutional amendments that banned same-sex marriages conflict with the U.S. Constitution, have declared the latter unconstitutional, and declared marriages for same-sex couples legal.

  • Gary Glenn is the president of the American Family Association of Michigan. In 2004, he co-authored the Michigan Marriage Amendment to the state Constitution that prohibited same-sex marriage. He was unhappy at the District Court ruling. He does not seem to be aware of how the federal court system works as described above. He said:

    "One Detroit lawyer in a black robe doesn’t have legitimate constitutional or moral authority to overturn either natural law or the vote of 2.7 million Michigan voters who placed the [2004] Marriage Protection Amendment in our state constitution."

    "This one political elitist put his own personal views above the will of the people, arrogantly ruling that all 2.7 million voters were ‘irrational’ in their common sense belief that the ideal environment for every child is having both a mother and a father committed to each other and to their children in marriage. We support Attorney General Bill Schuette in his appeal to overturn this illegitimate decision that has at least temporarily stripped Michigan citizens of the full measure and impact of their voting rights." 2

  • Detroit Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron wrote a statement for the Michigan Catholic Conference -- composed of the Roman Catholic bishops in the state. He wrote:

    "As I said with my brother bishops in Michigan, marriage has come to us as a gift of God in establishing the order of nature. The Catholic community in southeast Michigan will continue to give witness to the truth that marriage is between one man and one woman, which is the foundation for the flourishing of society." 2

    South-east Michigan would include Detroit and the surrounding suburbs.

Presumably, by "Catholic community" he is referring to both the hierarchy and the laity. He may not be aware that many polls show that the majority of American Catholics support same-sex marriage. 4,5

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

  • The Family Research Council (FRC) is a conservative Christian para-church organization, which has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-gay hate group. 5 The president of FRC, Tony Perkins, said:

    "This judicial activist stampede to redefine marriage is making a mockery of the ideals that our Founding Fathers stood for. The Left continues to push their social agenda into the courtrooms to demand the change that voters won't give them. With their ballot box options very limited, these activists have focused their attention on the federal bench -- raising the eyebrows and ire of the very Americans they hoped to persuade." 6

    Perkins is correct when he implied that the Founding Fathers would have been shocked at the idea of two men or two women marrying. They lived two centuries before the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses. At the time that the Founding Fathers were alive, sexually active homosexuals were typically rounded up and executed by the state. 7

    The national and state-wide Republican Party is opposed to marriage equality, with very few state senators and representatives in favor of marriage for same-sex couples. Almost all of the approximately 30 states that ban same-sex marriage have constitutional amendments in place that would require a very time-consuming process to appeal. The courts are now an attractive path to seek marriage equality quickly, particularly in politically conservative and highly religious areas of the country where it would take perhaps a decade more for the majority of voters to favor marriage equality.

    The 2013-JUN decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor v. United States triggered the current flurry of lawsuits through federal district courts. By 2014-MAR, these lawsits had resulted in rulings in favor of legalizing marriage for same-sex couples in six states: Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Dozens of other lawsuit were active in other states, but had not yet resulted in a ruling. In most cases, rulings have been stayed pending appeal to a higher court.

  • The National Organization for Marriage issued a statement about the District Court decision in Michigan. Its president, Brian Brown, wrote:

    "Activist judges in the federal courts are waging an all-out assault on marriage, issuing rulings to redefine this foundational institution in violation of U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the rule of law. This latest example in Michigan gives us the spectacle of a single federal judge deciding that he knows better than the people of Michigan who voted overwhelmingly to preserve marriage, and has imposed his will in defiance of the sovereign right of the State of Michigan to define marriage and in violation of U.S. Supreme Court rulings." 8,9

    "rfong" posted a comment to the article from which the above quote was taken. She/he wrote:

  • "In this case, the judge does know better than Michigan voters. A mob of self-interested voters can vote for any state law they like, but that law still needs to align with the US Constitution. Sovereignty does not include policies outside the bounds of Constitutional Law, which is why the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage, and the criminalizing of homosexuality.

    These proponents of SSM bans need to think up some new arguments. Federal judges around the US are taking their cues FROM the Supreme Court's trashing of DOMA and are finally righting a host [of] Constitutional wrongs enacted by reactionary religionists in the 1990s. These people are now very much in decline and will only continue to be as the decades pass." 9

horizontal rule

This topic is continued in the next essay

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. "Suddenly "Gay Marriages" commence in Michigan," Culture News, 2014-MAR-22, at: http://culturecampaign.blogspot.ca/
  2. Oralandar Brand-Williams and Mark Hicks," "Gay marriage ban struck down," The Detroit News, at: http://www.detroitnews.com/
  3. "Poll: majority of Catholics who attend Mass weekly support same-sex marriage, women’s ordination," Catholic World News, 2012-OCT-07, at: http://www.catholicculture.org/
  4. Jonathan Capehart, "Catholics still lead way on gay marriage," Washington Post, 2014-FEB-11, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
  5. David Demirbilek, "Southern Poverty Law Center repeats 'hate group' claim about Family Research Council," Daily Caller, 2012-SEP-13, at: http://dailycaller.com/
  6. Khalil Al Hajal, "National groups on both sides of gay marriage debate speak up on Michigan ruling," MLive, 2014-MAR-22, at: http://www.mlive.com/
  7. Louis Crompton, "Homosexuals and the Death Penalty in Colonial America, University of Nebraska, 1976-JAN-01, at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
  8. Khalil Al Hajal, "National groups on both sides of gay marriage debate speak up on Michigan ruling," MLive, 2014-MAR-22, at: http://www.mlive.com/
  9. Anugrah Kumar, "Judge Strikes Down Michigan's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage; Calls It Discriminatory," Christian Post, 2014-MAR-22, at: http://global.christianpost.com/

horizontal rule

Site navigation: Home > Homosexuality > Same-sex marriage > Menu > Michigan > here

Copyright © by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Initially posted: 2014-MAR-23
Latest update: 2014-AUG-19
Author: B.A. Robinson
line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link.

Go to the previous page, or to the "Same-sex marriage in Michigan" menu, or choose:

horizontal rule

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Hot, controversial topics

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.

 

Sponsored links: