Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law
EWTN News ^ | 7/6/2013

Posted on 07/06/2013 8:17:43 PM PDT by markomalley

A federal judge has blocked a Michigan law barring domestic partner benefits for public school and local government employees, citing the Supreme Court ruling that struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act.

U.S. District Judge David Lawson’s June 28 ruling said it can “never be a legitimate purpose” to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. He said the plaintiffs who lost benefits or had to pay for more expensive private health insurance have a “plausible claim” that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.

The 2011 law ended same-sex partner benefits for a few school districts, the counties of Ingham and Washtenaw and the cities of Ann Arbor, East Lansing and Kalamazoo, the Associated Press said.

Defenders of the law said it was passed in the spirit of a 2004 constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That amendment won 58 percent of the vote.

Michigan Attorney General Rick Snyder said the law was intended to ensure “fiscal responsibility and stewardship.” He said domestic partner policies can be written “without real parameters” and the law helped address “the spiraling costs of health care for the benefit of our state’s taxpayers and all Michiganders.”

EWTN News contacted the Michigan Catholic Conference for comment but did not receive a response by press time.

Judge Lawson cited the Supreme Court Case Lawrence v. Windsor, which struck down provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman.

The 5-4 court decision contended that the law violated equal protection guarantees because it aimed to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

Justice Anthony Scalia in his dissent said that the law “did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence – indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.”

Another federal judge in Michigan is also considering challenges to the state amendment defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: defenseofmarriageact; doma; homosexualagenda; michigan
Also see AP article on the same subject.

Thanks, Kennedy.

Bastard.

1 posted on 07/06/2013 8:17:43 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

By that reasoning it’s impossible to deny health insurance benefits to ANYONE living with you.


2 posted on 07/06/2013 9:03:06 PM PDT by Skywise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; All

It sounds like this federal judge does not understand the Founding States’ division of federal and state government powers. More specifically, the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage automatically makes such issues 10A-protected state power issues.

Also, regarding the PC, pro-gay interpretation of the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of 14A by activist justices and judges, the Constitution’s silence about so-called gay rights actually means that the states can make laws which discriminate against gays as long as all gays are discriminated against equally like I believe that the Michigan law was doing.


3 posted on 07/06/2013 9:11:39 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

DOMA was a federal law. What does a ruling on it have to do with a state law?


4 posted on 07/07/2013 12:05:23 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

DOMA was a federal law. What does a ruling on it have to do with a state law?


5 posted on 07/07/2013 12:05:23 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Springman; cyclotic; netmilsmom; RatsDawg; PGalt; FreedomHammer; queenkathy; madison10; ...
I'm amazed that Snyder actually opposes the benefits but he says he sees it as a fiscal issue.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Michigan legislative action thread
6 posted on 07/07/2013 3:41:24 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

You don’t understand. The homosexual agenda must occupy every corner of our existence. No man, woman, child or it can escape Big Gay Brother.

You have misbehaved. You have committed a thought crime. Go to your room!


7 posted on 07/07/2013 3:56:40 AM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: markomalley

Perhaps someone ought send the Domestic enemy (Kennedy) copies of the collected works of Thomas M.Cooley —and this Judge in Michigan ought be enlightened as to what a righteous Judge from Michigan once had to say about “marriage” .It is my understanding of the recent US supreme Court miscarriage— that the majority wanted to be seen as supporting states rights.If true then didn’t the people of Michigan support the amendment to their State Constitution defending Marriage— this queer Judge has offered an opine contrary to Law and Reason and therefore VOID.


9 posted on 07/07/2013 5:56:25 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This is what happens after the coup d’etat, when you’ve become a judicial oligarchy instead of a free republic.

Of course it is only happening because of the lack of understanding of, and commitment to, the obligations of the sacred oath by our elected “representatives.”


10 posted on 07/07/2013 6:00:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It’s time to elect only legislators who will deal with such breaches of the constitutionally-required republican form of government guaranteed to every state with speedy impeachment and removal of these judges.

You can be a judicial oligarchy, or you can be a free republic. You can’t be both. Pick one.


11 posted on 07/07/2013 6:03:19 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
12 posted on 07/07/2013 6:50:35 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson