Calif. Prop 8 trial might affect Mich. laws
Tweet
A trial to determine the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban began Monday and its repercussions could change marriage laws nationwide, experts said.
The court is considering the validity of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment passed in California in November 2008 that restricted the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Because of the controversial nature of the case, it is expected to become a landmark case that could eventually be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, said Brent Bilodeau, director of MSU’s Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Resource Center.
“Regardless of the outcome in California, it is highly probable that the case will make its way to the Supreme Court,” he said. “If Perry vs. Schwarzenegger succeeds there, it could mean that gay marriage would not only be permitted in California but in every state in the nation including Michigan.”
And while the issue is debated in California, House Speaker Pro Tempore Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, is trying to put Michigan at the forefront of same-sex marriage laws.
Byrnes introduced a package of bills in the Michigan House that would repeal the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
“I’d like to make Michigan move on this before some of the other states,” she said.
Byrnes said her amendment also would help Michigan’s economy.
“You find that places that accept same-sex marriage have more progressive young people living and working in those communities,” she said. “It isn’t only a moral protection issue, it’s an economic issue, as well.”
International relations and comparative cultures and politics sophomore Sean Watkins said he has gay friends who plan to travel out of the state or the country to get married.
“A heterosexual man and woman can get married anywhere they want, yet for a homosexual person they have to travel far away,” he said. “If I had a partner I wouldn’t want to live where I can’t get married.”
But in 2004, Michigan citizens voted to define marriage between a man and a woman and state Rep. Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell, said there is no need to amend what voters have already decided.
“I would strongly support keeping that language in the constitution the way it is,” he said.
Byrnes said she hopes to schedule a hearing with the House Judiciary Committee sometime in February for the consideration of the bills.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Frankster
(01/13/10 11:58am)Report
I do hope marriage is allowed in michigan as well as everywhere in the united states. Thiz commitment ceromony or party event that I had carries about much meaning as a potato with butter.
Cary
(01/13/10 12:39pm)Report
Apparently Michigan’s laws are worse than most of the other states because they ban recognition of any same-sex relationship. This effectively banned any benefits recognition such as insurance benefits for domestic partners.
Chris
(01/13/10 12:53pm)Report
What Rep. Dave Hildenbrand said in 2004, on marriage equality: “The majority of people believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we should just go with the majority.”
What Rep. Dave Hildenbrand would have said in 1964 on interracial marriage: “The majority of people believe marriage is between a man and a woman of the same race, and I think we should just go with the majority.”
What Rep. Dave Hildenbrand would have said in 1564 on witchcraft: “The majority of people believe witches should be burned at the stake, and I think we should just go with the majority.”
I don’t know, Dave…I’m starting to wonder whether following the will of the majority is really such a good idea.
Nefreet
(01/13/10 1:15pm)Report
Unfortunately, even if the Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8 for California, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act will still prevent other states from having to recognize same-sex marriages. There is another lawsuit in the works by the state of Massachusetts that will hopefully repeal the discriminatory law, unless Obama lives up to his campaign promises and strikes that down, too.
Chuck Anziulewicz
(01/13/10 3:19pm)Report
Some people have suggested that marriage should be decided on a state-by-state basis. But it’s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed’s point of view, it wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically “UN-married” once they decide to move somewhere else. This is something heterosexual couples never have to bother even worrying about.
The fact remains that the term “marriage” does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no “right” for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government’s standpoint. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I’m sure they would prefer NOT to.
If the government still considers “marriage” to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.