Comments about ‘Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 21 2014 11:16 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
firstamendment
Lehi, UT

Sad that Government by and for the People is perishing from the earth. Gays can already be monogamous, love, and so on. There is no reason to make voters and tax payers to promote homoesxduality and legally enforce relationships that really aren't crucial to our survival.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Michigan joins Utah and a growing number of other states on the front lines in the defense of marriage equality.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

Soon the sun will rise and set on a truly free America. When that day comes people who walk the walk of real justice and love for their fellow man will realize that a truly righteous thing has been done in granting equal rights for all.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

In many ways the headline is misleading. Michigan did not ban same-sex marriage, I created a man/woman definition of marriage that was inherent in the understanding of marriage as a complete union of two people. Only man/woman sex can have a unifying purpose and the ability to make two into one flesh. The successful creation of a child, or even the intention of creating a child is not needed for this unifying to create two into one flesh, but other sexual actions and non-sexual actions do not have this outcome.

This is another case where we see someone who clearly was an activist judge. He excluded from testifying in the trial a person with a degree in philosophy who has written "What is Marriage: Man, Woman a defense" and formulated a comprehensive defense of the man/woman definition of marriage. This exclusion was justified on no logical grounds, and was basically just judicial action to stack the deck for the desired outcome.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I have an issue with the abuse of power. Of, By and For the People. When the people spoke with vote. Haw does a guy not respect that. Just because he has a position of respect doesn't make him respectable. Respect is earned.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

Once again the Constitutional protection and guarantee of equal civil rights prevails. Good.

koseighty
The Shire, UT

The whole point of our Constitution and civil rights is to protect us all (even minorities) from a tyranny of a majority.

From the judge's ruling:

"Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law."

And later:

"Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail."

There have been 39 federal rulings on marriage equality since Windsor. ALL of those judges — Reagan, Bush, and Obama appointed — have ruled in favor of equality. (This "activist judge" was a Reagan appointee.) The score stands 39-0 in favor of equal protection under the law.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

"This is another case where we see someone who clearly was an activist judge."

Since the Supreme Court's Windsor decision last year, there have been cases dealing with marriage equality in New Mexico, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, and now Michigan.

The side of equality has won every single one of the cases. A perfect record.

Are you maintaining that every single one of these judges was an activist?

10CC
Bountiful, UT

It would be good to get the precise predictions of America's demise from those who cry the sky is really falling, this time, for reals.

How exactly will hetero marriage and society be damaged?

If there's one thing Americans are good at, it's exclaiming about our imminent demise, at numerous points throughout our history.

Granting women the right to vote was going to ruin the Republic, same for granting civil rights to minorities. The list is pretty expansive, but somehow, we're still here, still quite free, doing pretty well, actually.

If you believe the US is risking our demise by letting these other people get married, you need to go back and study our history - including Patrick Henry's passionate warning about how the US Constitution itself was a terrible development for freedom - and either conclude:

1. We've never really been free, it's all been a façade.

2. We've sailed through numerous changes just fine.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

You wrote: " This is another case where we see someone who clearly was an activist judge."

Interesting assumption, However, The Washington Post published this morning: "Friedman, 70, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and took senior status in 2009, said the state’s defense of the law was misguided. “In attempting to define this case as a challenge to ‘the will of the people,’ state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people.”

Wow!!! The Saint Patron of all Republicans, the infallible Ronald Reagan appointed this judge who now.....has become and activist judge ( suspense music in the background) the end is definitely coming.

@ Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA
You wrote:
"Soon the sun will rise and set on a truly free America. When that day comes people who walk the walk of real justice and love for their fellow man will realize that a truly righteous thing has been done in granting equal rights for all".

Thank you for your beautiful thought!!!

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

This decision spells real trouble for Utah's prospects in the "Kitchen v. Herbert" appeal.

Dr. Mark Regnerus, who is cited prominently in the state of Utah briefs, was put on the stand and did not do well. The judge, a Reagan appointee, wrote this concerning the state of Michigan's star witness "The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."

As for John Pack Lambert's characterization of the judge's dismissal of Sherif Girgis -- actually, judge Friedman was quite complimentary, saying Girgis would probably eventually be a good witness, but as a graduate student, he was "still having his papers graded by someone else". This begs the question of why Michigan didn't put Princeton's Robert George on the stand, one of the professors in a position to be grading Girgis' papers.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

Of course when a judge trained in the law and knowledgeable of the Constitution upholds that Constitution, it is then said they are an "activist judge" appointed by Obama. This is getting tiresome. These judges are not activists, they are upholding the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold. Voters do not have the right, and never have had the right to take away another citizens rights! This is yet another victory for the Constitution of the United States. Those who scream otherwise are not educated about the rights this Constitution gives ALL of it's citizens!

gmlewis
Houston, TX

With the current state of our corrupted laws, there was really no other decision that could be made. Next stop: legalized suicide. Why do I link these two choices? Because the only people hurt by Same Sex Marriage are themselves. The injury will not be apparent until they enter the Spirit World, where we shall have a bright recollection of all our guilt.

Those with Same Sex Attraction have their moral agency to marry someone of their own sex, if they choose. Sometimes the law protects us from our choices, but most of the time we are free to pursue our own folly.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

gmlewis
Houston, TX

" The injury will not be apparent until they enter the Spirit World, where we shall have a bright recollection of all our guilt."

My friend, careful what you wish for.

LGBT and SSM marriage doesn't hurt anyone. Your bigotry, the physical and psychological violence against those who are different to you hurt millions.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

To gmlewis

What if we enter the spirit world and The Muslims were right and Christians are infidels? When someone judges some one else that goes against every Christian scripture. Or do you know for sure how everyone is going to be judged? I doubt it!

Avenue
Vernal, UT

@Baccus0902
It seems to me that you are comparing certain religions, including my own, to bigotry. My, and I'm sure many others', opposition of SSM is not founded out of bigotry, but out of the belief that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred union and the only marriage acceptable to God. gmlewis was simply stating his or her religious beliefs, and you have no reason to call him/her a bigot for that.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

In the movie "Thank You For Smoking" a father teaches his son to debate.

The son declares chocolate ice cream is his favorite and the best. The father responds "I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that is the definition of liberty."

The son says, "you didn't prove I'm wrong." The father points to an imaginary audience, "I'm not after you. I'm after them."

The proponents of "traditional marriage" argued for religious chocolate ice cream. They talked about "biblical marriage" but missed Bible marriages being business transactions between two men that included multiple wives and concubines.

They argued for the "sanctity of marriage," while ignoring divorce rates of their congregations and party leaders.

They argued for "protecting children" while ignoring children in gay families.

SSM proponents talked about decades long relationships without legal standing; gay parents raising children and adopting special needs children; equal protection under the law.

The public realized we can have chocolate ice cream and vanilla. And we can have marriage equality.

gmlewis
Houston, TX

Utefan60: You might have noticed that I said that "we will have a bright recollection of all our guilt" in the Spirit World. Everyone, including myself, will recognize in the Spirit World our follies in mortal life. By focusing on the Spirit World, I deliberately avoided discussion of the Final Judgement, which occurs much later. I cannot possibly know how I or anyone else will be judged, because we will have time in the Spirit World to complete our repentence.

However, Same Sex Marriage is a folly that will just complicate things during that time.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ Avenue ".. I'm sure many others', opposition of SSM is not founded out of bigotry, but out of the belief that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred union and the only marriage acceptable to God"

A few decades ago many believed that God separated the races for a reason, and justified that belief to oppose interracial marriages. They argued that this belief was not bigotry, it was was what God wanted.

History demonstrates very well the use of God to justify bigotry. It didn't work then, and it should not be allowed to work today.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

gmlewis wrote:
"The injury will not be apparent until they enter the Spirit World, where we shall have a bright recollection of all our guilt."

and

"Everyone, including myself, will recognize in the Spirit World our follies in mortal life."

and

"By focusing on the Spirit World, I deliberately avoided discussion of the Final Judgement, which occurs much later."

These are eccentric religious beliefs most likely acquired as part of an intense childhood indoctrination. While I find them fascinating, I am very clear in my own belief that gmlewis is mistaken. There are simply no good reasons to believe any of the above propositions, let alone to organize one's life around them. Yet I would never try to induce someone such as gmlewis to abandon those beliefs, nor would I try to prevent him/her from living according to those beliefs. I accept that they probably give him/her comfort and meaning and I'm fine with that. I certainly would never seek to outlaw them.

Please understand, though, in a pluralistic society, religious beliefs alone, can never be the basis on which to formulate secular laws.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments