Michigan's Ban On Same Sex Marriage Overtuned
Controversy:
A Ban on Same Sex Marriage in Michigan
Decision: Judge
Bernard A. Friedman Ruling Overturns the Violation of Equal Protection
Warning: Should the
Appellate Court Agree to Review the State’s Case, It Will Perpetuate an
American Travesty of the Denial for Equal Rights and Reeks of Foul Play
Detroit
March 24, 2014
In 2004, Michigan voters approved a ban
on same-sex marriage by a 59% - 41% margin. One-year
prior, Our Canadian neighbors rather matter-of-factly were discussing same-sex
marriage not as a derisive issue or catastrophe or the Apocalypse. The eventual acceptance of equal protection
and a right to marry among gay couples (at last glimpse) did not topple Ottawa.
It became part of the fabric of a civilized society and the inevitable
evolution of progressive thought.
An Ontario Court struck down the
law defining traditional marriage as unconstitutional on June 10, 2003. Two years later the Canadians passed the
Civil Marriage Act legalizing same sex marriage nationwide. That was 2005. Here we have two democratic societies sharing
a common border dealing with a sensitive social and moral issue (to some) with
somewhat different results. More importantly, Canadian Society processed
(pro-cessed) the right of same sex marriage exponentially and in short time the
law assimilated among the people.
Here in Michigan, a
short 1 ¼ mile tunnel excursion south from Detroit to Windsor, the passage of the
statewide referendum banning same sex marriage waned and disappeared from the
headlines. That is not until January 2012 when April DeBoer and Jayne
Rowse, a lesbian couple filed their lawsuit in federal court seeking to strike
down the 2004 amendment.
The couple’s motivation to file suit is that
under other Michigan statutes their rights not only as a couple but also as
biological parents were in jeopardy. The ban not only violated their
constitutional rights and equal treatment under the law that protected every
other heterosexual couples (even those deemed lacking parental skills).They
came to learn under this law, if as a surviving adult their basic legal and Moral rights as parents became
the fodder for the inevitable future war. The ensuing battle's end would sever
the ties among a loving family. The sacrifices made over nine years of love,
care, education and hopes and dreams for their children may forever disappear.
Why? The Law will not recognize, grant or find support among the small majority
of “Christians” as marriage as moral and the Lord's will. The evangelicals base
discrimination of equal treatment due to their religious beliefs. They fail to
see or use their ignorance as a shield to embrace the Love they espouse. Who
are these people who profess love of Christ, their obedience to a higher
purpose and a literal interpretation of the Bible? They are children of God who
lack the wisdom of his teachings.
This denial to act as primary custodians for their “family” is lacking in human decency. It is not “Common Sense.” Separations of this magnitude would indeed cause greater harm and trauma to the children it purports to protect. Under this law, “any person(s), a distant relative, a teacher who may display concern” would have as equal if not more chance than the surviving “mother” of these children...
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin
Imagine if a distant relative or a member of
one immediate family for that matter could petition the court for legal and
physical custody of children raised nine years within the same loving family. Worse,
a hidden agenda may exist where a relative, grandparent, sibling…may seek
custody for vengeance against the adoptive mother with far greater connection,
love and caring than anyone else. Imagine too, the trauma if the court awarded
custody to a grandparent (who has legal preference simply by genetics) took the
children to a distant state where for all intent and purpose, the familial
connection, love between children, their second mother, their friends, school
would be severed permanently. What if a similar scenario and tragedy were to fall
upon a heterosexual couple? A similar trauma and damage to the family stability
would occur.
Far worse consider that while a legal battle
for custody of the deceased partner’s children dragged through the courts, The
Department of Human Services under Children’s Protective Services would likely
step in to stem the chaos as it intensified over time. The resultant action by
DHS CPS workers would be the forced removal of the children from their happy
home only to be placed in the State of Michigan’s admittedly abhorrent Foster
Care Program. One huge injustice upon another would be heaped on a loving
“parent” whose children may not understand what was happening only concluding
that as children it is “their fault.”
As Judge Friedman, eloquently and adroitly
points out in his written decision there are five (5) main legal issues that
required the Court to address. As plaintiffs, the couple brought forth expert
witnesses from about every professional field as they relate to children and
the family environment they are exposed.
With every single plaintiff “expert” their
testimony side railed the goal of a “Summary Suspension” of the matter in order
to put in place a ”wait and see” study, yet another Republican-stacked
do-nothing Committee to sweep the lawsuit under the rug. The strategy backfired
as Judge Friedman cannot be labeled a novice in these underhanded tactics. The
argument that “one man cannot usurp the will of the People is unfair” to the
51%. (Where has that percentage been deployed before I wonder.) The State’s
case rested. A plethora of facts, expertise and the law is now in hand of Judge
Friedman. How could he not rule in favor of a violation of this courageous
lesbian couple and equal protection of the Law for the LGBT minority? God,
Equality, Morality, and the U.S. Constitution will soon to be hear.
On the other hand, the State as Defendants
brought their own sociological and other experts to testify in rebuttal to
those of the Plaintiffs. Judge Friedman found their testimony to be shallow in
empirical research and overall credibility. The “facts” as presented were at
times contradictory, unprofessional and unbelievable. What is more frightening
is that one of the renowned sociologists who conducted research and surveys
among a small sampling of same sex partners with children admitted he was
motivated by “a third party who paid for the study and subsequent court
appearance because “this matter required it be defeated at all costs, right
now.” The “hidden third party bank rolled the funding and payments to “expert
research” may now be in a “witness protection program.” Intuition leans heavily
that the third party is Republican in nature.
My question is if this party or group is so
vehement that the ban not be overturned why keeping their identity secret. However, this is just how skewed, prejudicial
and hateful some opponents hold so dear to their archaic views. In my mind, it
is an abomination and a threat to our judicial system.
The State of Michigan found their defense
losing the case. The defense introduced a one almost “ludicrous arguments” that
became self-defeating and in my mind sealed defeat. The argument exemplified a
deliberate strategy to win the “hearts and minds” of an unqualified majority of
Michigan voters. The State’s Attorney presenting the case either bought in to a
Republican strategy well aware it could not escape Judge Friedman, Constitutional
interpretation and a clear vision of precedent.
The State’s failure is quite evident in the
reactions of some politicians and the public. What The opponents purport is
their (rather rhetorical) question indicative of a vote population suffering
from a basic understanding of American History and our U.S. Constitution. It is
frightening to me that 51% of the voters (and no doubt non-voters) lack a
fundamental understanding our History and they could be a dangerous threat to
our democratic Government.
Following release of Judge Friedman’s ruling
in overturning the “ban on same sex marriage” the Governors spokesperson issued
his press release.
“We respect the court’s
ruling, and we clearly recognize there are going to be appeals filed. This case
wasn’t about LGBT issues, but about the governor’s obligation to defend the law
and the (state) constitution as people wrote or amended it.”
The State also argues that it has a “legitimate” interest in
preserving the traditional family structure because — it claims — children
thrive best when raised by married moms and dads. The State’s weak argument in
how “children thrive” self-imploded as discussed.
Perhaps, the State saved what they believed to be an ace in the
hole. State attorneys (who reportedly attended Law School) argued, “The will of
the voters should not be drowned out by a single judge”.
I repeatedly heard the same refrain since the ruling. Local
Channel WDIV broadcast one Detroit minister’s disdain for the outcome, “How can
one man make a decision that millions of Michigan voters approved?”
This argument lacks true precedence and reflects
the voter, public and the State understanding of our Judicial Branch without
which we as a democracy would have never survived. Attorney
General Bill Schuette said that the ruling goes against Michigan’s
constitution, Schuette filed the
request with the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati at 5:17 on Friday, March 21.
Judge
Friedman has cited the written opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court by Justices
Kennedy and Johnson.
The
very purpose of a Bill of Rights was
to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes
of political controversy…One’s right to life, liberty, and property,
to
free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental
rights may not
be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Supreme
Court has clearly stated that if . . .
an enactment violates the U.S.
Constitution -
whether passed by the people or their representatives - judicial
review
is necessary to preserve the rule of law . . . [t]he electorate cannot order a
- isolation of
the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses by referendum or
otherwise, just as the state may not avoid their application by
deferring to the
wishes or objections
of its citizens.
Judge Friedman has written opinion one of the most telling
and heartfelt statements he wrote. “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.”
Return to My Digression to Canada
I do not know if sociologists
have deemed our Canadian neighbors as being an advanced society when they
embraced this act as the third nation in the world to legalize gay marriage.
What I do recall is approximately that year of 2005 I viewed a national CBC
News program where various journalists and other pundits from Vancouver to
Montreal held a televised forum regarding same sex marriage. One of the last
comments made was in reference as to whether the United States would ever
accept gay marriage and pass legislation to that end. One of the commentators
indicated that eventually the U.S. would indeed find a propelling need to do
the same. I remember the panel smiling and laughing as they signed off with
some quip that Americans may be slow to do so, but eventually, perhaps within
ten years same sex marriage would not be a whisper of an issue here.
I believe this one CBC
television discussion remained with me all these years is that I felt a slight
indignation. At the time, this was a hot issue in the U.S. I found the opinion
of a ten-year lag time for Americans to “catch-up” somewhat of an insult to our
country’s intellect and progressive vision. After all, we had put a man on the
moon while Canada continued to put hockey players in the penalty box.
Interesting that within their national sport, punitions was hand out for
“interference and holding” preventing progress and a right of way.
Some years later, I came across
a quote by Great Britain Prime Minister Winston Churchill. During the worst of
WWII and the almost ceaseless Nazi air campaign, Churchill came to see the
United States as the only ally that could save England and he found himself
besieged by questions as to when the American People would come to their aid.
Without much hesitation his retort followed, “You can always
count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”
I found both humor and a dry wit in this mot as it prodded Americans to
“do the right thing.” It bordered on resigned indignation with a caveat looming
that he just may offend pacifists here across the pond. I pondered his methodology
and found many of my own statements dealing similar controversy. It is not
meant to slander, but to motivate people to look beyond personal prejudice for
what is both right and moral.
You may read the entire written
decision of Judge Benjamin A. Friedman where in detail he examines all of the arguments
and the five major issues of law he rules at the following link.
Comments
Post a Comment