Gays

[indago]

Hayley Fox wrote for Takepart.com 8 January 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The last time the Supreme Court reviewed gay marriage cases was in October, and it declined to take any up. At that time only 19 states had marriage equality; now that number is at 36, said Charles Joughin, national press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights group that advocates for LGBT equality. “Seventy percent of Americans now live in a state with marriage equality, and that number was considerably lower the last time these justices considered whether to take up a marriage case,” he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

article

When it is considered that some of those States were forced into accepting the gay marriage by the feds, the statement by Charles Joughin is deceptive, at best.


Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

[fj1200]

When it is considered that some of those States were forced into accepting the gay marriage by the feds...

Surely you mean the Constitution.

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

Indeed.

[indago]

Surely you mean the Constitution.

No! The federal courts... THE FEDS

[tailfins]

Surely you mean the Constitution.



Indeed.

I will split the difference with you an call it a warped interpretation of the Constitution that never existed until recently.

[fj1200]

No! The federal courts... THE FEDS

As in interpreting the Constitution -> equal protection. It's not a real hard question unless you just really don't like the answer.

I will split the difference with you an call it a warped interpretation of the Constitution that never existed until recently.

Equal protection has existed for quite some time. But I would agree with you if the Federal government hadn't privileged marriage in so many ways for so long.

[indago]

equal protection

Equal Protection of the Laws...

"nor shall any state... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." — From Fourteenth Amendment

"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." — Michigan State Constitution - Article I § 25

That is the law in Michigan.

[fj1200]

Equal Protection of the Laws...

"nor shall any state... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." — From Fourteenth Amendment

"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." — Michigan State Constitution - Article I § 25

That is the law in Michigan.

You already tried that one. The Federal Constitution trumps the State especially when a State Constitution violates equal protection.

[tailfins]

You already tried that one. The Federal Constitution trumps the State especially when a State Constitution violates equal protection.

Only if you want to use sleight of hand to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which is exactly what corrupt courts have done.

[indago]

Only if you want to use sleight of hand to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which is exactly what corrupt courts have done.

Exactly! You don't see any alcohol check lanes in Michigan. Michigan Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional, although the federal supreme court said they weren't.

[fj1200]

Only if you want to use sleight of hand to ignore the Tenth Amendment, which is exactly what corrupt courts have done.

The Tenth? Dude, unfortunately nobody has taken the Tenth seriously in a hundred years. But if you want to go all Constitution then tell me where marriage is found in the Constitution.

Exactly! You don't see any alcohol check lanes in Michigan. Michigan Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional, although the federal supreme court said they weren't.

Do you ever fact what you post?

After reviewing the case, the Michigan State Supreme Court agreed with the drivers and ruled in their favor—but that changed once the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

...

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to leave it up to each state to determine whether law officers could use DUI checkpoints to apprehend suspected drunk drivers. Following this ruling, eleven states passed laws to prohibit roadblocks, while the remaining 39 states continued to allow them.

So what does that mean for you? Well, if you are lucky enough to live in one of the states where roadblocks aren’t allowed (Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), you have nothing to worry about.

http://www.duicheckpoints.net/aredui...itutional.html

You don't see check lanes in Michigan because Michigan chose not to allow them, it has nothing to do with the State Supreme Court finding them unconstitutional.

[indago]

Do you ever fact what you post?


http://www.duicheckpoints.net/aredui...itutional.html

You don't see check lanes in Michigan because Michigan chose not to allow them, it has nothing to do with the State Supreme Court finding them unconstitutional.

The Michigan Supreme Court opinion declared: "Because there is no support in the constitutional history of Michigan for the proposition that the police may engage in warrantless and suspicionless seizures of automobiles for the purpose of enforcing the criminal law, we hold that sobriety checklanes violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution."

The opinion noted that "the federal and state constitution provisions that forbid unreasonable searches and seizures are nearly identical."

The Court noted that: "This Court has never recognized the right of the state, without any level of suspicion whatsoever, to detain members of the population at large for criminal investigatory purposes." Also, the "Court showed a marked hostility toward the use of a license check as a pretext to investigate criminal activity", and continued: "...it is not the genius of our system that the constitutional rights of persons shall depend for their efficacy upon legislative benevolence."

Now, looking at what the Michigan Supreme Court wrote in their opinion, I would say that they found the check lanes to be unconstitutional.

Maybe you should consider withdrawing from the discussion with your tail between your legs...

[fj1200]

Now, looking at what the Michigan Supreme Court wrote in their opinion, I would say that they found the check lanes to be unconstitutional.

Maybe you should consider withdrawing from the discussion with your tail between your legs...

From your case:

Because the United States Supreme Court established that Michigan's sobriety checkpoints do not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the specific question presented in this case is whether sobriety checkpoints are unreasonable under art 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution. Before addressing this issue, we must first address the more fundamental question, how we interpret the Michigan Constitution.

http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan...3/93851-6.html

You should brush up on the supremacy clause rather than just stick your head in the sand.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[indago]

From your case:


http://law.justia.com/cases/michigan...3/93851-6.html

You should brush up on the supremacy clause rather than just stick your head in the sand.

Regardless, you won't find any alcohol checklanes in Michigan. They violate the Michigan Constitution, and are unconstitutional.

[fj1200]

Regardless, you won't find any alcohol checklanes in Michigan. They violate the Michigan Constitution, and are unconstitutional.

But you do acknowledge the supremacy clause right? For years the Alabama Constitution banned interracial marriage, long after the Loving decision, and was moot per Loving: Was Alabama's interracial marriage ban constitutional while it was still on the books post Loving?

[indago]

In the case of Sitz v Department of State Police, a case involving "sobriety checkpoints", it was noted that Governor Blanchard, in his State of the State Address of January 29, 1986, directed the Director of the Michigan Department of State Police to implement a sobriety checkpoint system in the State for the detection of "drunk drivers". "All motorists would be stopped upon reaching a checkpoint and would be examined for signs of intoxication." A "sobriety checkpoint" was established in Saginaw County on 17 May 1986 at 11:45 PM and continued, as noted in the report of the Michigan Court of Appeals, for over an hour. On 16 May 1986, an action was filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the use of these checkpoints on the basis that there was no probable cause to believe that the individual inhabitants of the State were committing a crime that would require a seizure of them and their automobile on the highway. The action was filed by Rick Sitz; Joseph F. Young, Sr.; Dominic J. Jacobetti; Dick Allen; Keith Muslow; and Jack Welborn. It was filed against Michigan Department of State Police and Gerald L. Hough, Director. It was reported that "Following a bench trial, the court, Michael L. Stacey, J., found that the checkpoints violated both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution and permanently enjoined their implementation." The case was appealed by the Director to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the lower court opinion was affirmed.


The Director then appealed his case to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan in 1989 and was denied leave to appeal. He then filed appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States, where the decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of Michigan was reversed, remanding the case back to the Michigan Court of Appeals for appropriate action, which affirmed its earlier ruling. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, and the case was argued, and decided 14 September 1993. It was reported that "Sobriety checkpoints violate Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution."