Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:23 PM
Hissyspit (43,947 posts)
Michigan Ban on Domestic Partner Benefits Struck Down by Federal Judge
Michigan ban on domestic partner benefits struck down by federal judge
By Brian Smith | email@example.com
on June 28, 2013 at 12:13 PM, updated June 28, 2013 at 12:15 PM
LANSING -- A federal judge has struck down as unconstitutional a Michigan law barring public employers from offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
The decision from U.S. District Judge David S. Lawson prevents Gov. Rick Snyder and state officials from enforcing the 2011 law prohibiting cities, counties and other public employers from offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
A group of five same-sex couples had filed suit against Snyder and the state alleging the law violated the U.S. Constitution by violating due process and equal protection rights. Attorneys for the state had argued the couples lacked standing to bring the suit and had not suffered an identifiable injury as a result of the law.
Read more: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/michigan_ban_on_domestic_partn.html
20 replies, 2285 views
Michigan Ban on Domestic Partner Benefits Struck Down by Federal Judge (Original post)
Response to William769 (Reply #2)
Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:35 PM
lark (3,288 posts)
3. Side benefit
Scalia is probably totally pissed about this and getting madder by the minute. His precious religious bullying isn't being accepted much anymore, poor little baby.
edited for typo
Response to lark (Reply #3)
Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:40 PM
William769 (42,253 posts)
4. He predicted it in his dissent back in 2003 in Lawrence V. Texas
Was one thing he was right about.
All that rage and a seat on the highest court and he's fucked (so to speak).
Response to Hissyspit (Original post)
Fri Jun 28, 2013, 12:48 PM
chillfactor (1,103 posts)
7. thank goodness for the intelligence and constitutional knowledge....
of the judge.....Snyder and his croonies are the epitomy of ruthlessness and have no hearts, no souls, and have to share one brain which fires on only one synap
Response to Hissyspit (Original post)
Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:08 AM
happyslug (12,912 posts)
20. This will be modified, due to the recent Supreme Court Decisions
First, The Supreme Court put a strong restrictions on Standing. That the people who filed this action had suffered NO direct harm, under the decision of the US Supreme Court, might mean they had no standing and thus the case may have to be dismissed. Read the actual decisions, they do NOT rule that Gay Marriages are constitutional, but in the one on California Proposition 8, that the people defending it had no standing to defend it. In the DOMA Case, that issues of Marriage is something that is reserved to the States to determine and any FEDERAL Law on Marriages is unconstitutional for what is Marriage is reserved to the States.
Second, at least four of the Justices were willing to rule that Marriage is up the State and that a state could permit gay marriages or ban gay marriages, either way, they would be no violation of the Federal Constitution. The five justices who voted to uphold the decision in California, upheld that decision on the narrow grounds that no one but the Governor of the state could defend a state statute from a Federal ruling that the State Statute was unconstitutional and thus when the Governor refused to file the appeal, no one else had standing to file that appeal.
In simple terms, this decision by this Federal District Judge will have to be revised. The big question is how much weight will he give to the dissent and they position that what a State does in regard to Marriage is reserved to the State alone.
Read the actual Decisions, the rationale used by the Majority in both cases are NOT good. The Environmentalists are in open revolt for they see themselves as the next victim of these decisions (i.e. they suffered no harm, and thus have no standing in any pollution case, and in any environmental case only the Federal Government or a State Government have standing to stop pollution).
Recent Supreme Court Cases:
US Supreme Court on California Proposition 8:
US Supreme Court on DOMA: