Michigan gay marriage ban declared unconstitutional

[Ryantology]

Another nail is pounded in the coffin

It's happening so fast that I can't even find an up-to-date map. That's okay, though. Soon, all you'd need to do is look for a map of the United States. This marks the 30th state to either recognize marriage equality, or face a significant and direct judicial challenge to standing bans.

At least, as of this week.

Roll on, fabulanche.

[Rev. Rye]

This is absolutely awesome. I have a lesbian friend from Michigan, and she said she wanted to marry her girlfriend there.

So, yeah. It's the 18th state to recognise gay marriage.

[Justtristo]

I am wondering how these courts are declaring various state bans on recognizing same sex marriages as unconstitutional?

Because here in Australia our version of the Supreme Court (the High Court), struck down a bill legally recognising same sex marriages made by a territory. Citing a section in our constitution giving the only the commonwealth government the power to make laws concerning marriages.

[Chas]

I am wondering how these courts are declaring various state bans on recognizing same sex marriages as unconstitutional?

Because here in Australia our version of the Supreme Court (the High Court), struck down a bill legally recognising same sex marriages made by a territory. Citing a section in our constitution giving the only the commonwealth government the power to make laws concerning marriages.

Because the systems aren't the same, I would guess.

Most state constitutions guarantee basic human rights and equal protection. The state courts are declaring that is in violation of the state's constitutional guarantee.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared a key part of the federal law on the same basis - equal protection under the law.

[Minimalist]

I am wondering how these courts are declaring various state bans on recognizing same sex marriages as unconstitutional?

Because here in Australia our version of the Supreme Court (the High Court), struck down a bill legally recognising same sex marriages made by a territory. Citing a section in our constitution giving the only the commonwealth government the power to make laws concerning marriages.

The prevailing case is Romer v Evans. A 1996 Supreme Court case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

The Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not pass the rational basis test, under the Equal Protection Clause.[2] The decision in Romer set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Court overruled its decision in Bowers,[1] and for the Supreme Court ruling striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor (2013).

Significantly in Michigan the judge did not stay his own ruling pending Appeal. That means that, as in California, there will be many gay couples married before any Supreme Court decision could be made. At this point, however, the SC does not even have to take the case. It merely has to allow the lower court decisions to stand.

[SteelCurtain]

Fabulanche... I hadn't heard that. I love it.

[Faith No More]

I was wondering why my marriage was so terrible today.

My state's going to let two dudes get married, and it's ruining my fine, upstanding heterosexual union.

[Ryantology]

Well, if Kentucky's appeal against a similar ruling here doesn't work, I will have no choice but to file for divorce.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The SCOTUS could eliminate such court cases if the dummies would simply state in plain language that any law that violated the equal protection clause is unconstitutional and will be declared null and void. The problem is that so many State legislators and Governors have bat guano for brains so they are always trying to pass Jim Crow laws that restrict freedom instead of expand it.

[Foxaèr]

Maybe there is still hope for America yet.