General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew strategy for those who oppose gay marriage...
Take a read... sounds like a lot of double talk to me, but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how realistic this argument is and how seriously the SCOTUS will take it. (Well, we know how at least 4 members of the SCOTUS will take it. They made up their mind as soon as the Koch's told them what to do...)
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/fight-continues-over-ban-against-samesex-marriage/32391350
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)or at least give the gist of it.
I come to DU to read DU, and not to follow links to obscure unidentified sites.
Takket
(21,424 posts)Clickondetroit is the NBC's channel 4 affiliate in Detroit. They are legit
DETROIT -
Hes the hired gun being brought in to argue in favor of upholding Michigans ban on gay marriage, but for John Bursch, this case isnt about the definition of marriage, it's about upholding Michigans Constitution.
The urban legend around Bursch is that he didnt miss a single question on the bar exam, something he laughs off, but his reputation is that of a top legal mind.
This case isnt about the best way to define marriage, Bursch said. Frankly, the Attorney Generals Office has no interest in how to define marriage; the question is about who gets to decide that question.
In 2004, Michigan voters supported a ballot initiative that defined marriage as one man and one woman. A lawsuit brought by a lesbian couple from Hazel Park is looking to overturn it.
April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse want to be able to adopt each others children -- something Michigans ban on same sex marriage wont allow for. They won at the federal level, but were then overturned at the federal appeals court. Now their case is going all the way to the Supreme Court on April 28.
The big question DeBoer and Rowse are asking is: Does the 14th Amendment provide for gay marriage? The marriage equality movement says yes, Bursch says no.
The definition of marriage (is) between a man and a woman -- the definition weve had since before we were even a state, when Michigan was still a territory in 1805. The constitution doesnt say anything about whether thats right or wrong.
The Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment in a broad range of cases, and will it use it here to affirm gay marriage remains to be seen.
Opinion is divided in the legal community about what kind of success Bursch will have and whether fighting to keep Michigans ban in place is appropriate. Other state attorney generals have opted not to fight to keep bans in place. Bursch said thats not appropriate.
For me, being on the wrong side of history would not be willing to stand up and defend part of Michigans state constitution that 2.7 million people voted in favor for. In this case, were standing up for democracy.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This is just an attorney puff piece that says he'll use the same broken arguments used time and time again.
The article doesn't match the headlines.
(and you want to trim back the excerpt to four paragraphs or less, not copy the entire article)
LiberalFighter
(50,499 posts)if an article is worth reviewing.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The scant details at the link suggest the argument is that Michigan's constitution empowers the people dondefine marriage. But precendent already holds that the people cannot act in animus or discriminate. The argument is not new an dead in the water.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Michigan amended its constitution to prevent gay marriage in 2004:
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
§ 25 Marriage.
Sec. 25.
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 2, 2004, Eff. Dec. 18, 2004
So, by his argument, 'since we wrote in the Constitution that marriage is only between one man and one woman that is the only definition of marriage. So any other marriage is not legitimate.'
Easy peasy. The problem is that this will get 4 votes (at least) from the Supremes if it gets to them. Hopefully it won't.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)IMO his position is invalid.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
So, if they ruled to ban gay marriage, he's OK with that, but if they ruled to support gay marriage, then that is wrong by him!