[lightman]

“Justice Jay has had his say, now let him enforce it!”

Good to see an Executive with a pair!

[vmivol00]

If Obama can play that game...why can’t every governor. Its a dangerous precedent that he set.

There are no laws....just men.

[fwdude]

Michigan's governor has refused to recognize the gay marriage licenses issued after a judge declared the state's ban on same-sex unions unconstitutional.

This is an incorrect statement. It should read, "Michigan's governor has voided the illegally, improperly modified and issued counterfeit "marriage" licenses dispersed...."

[factoryrat]

I voted for that ban in 2004, and now some POS judge has decided that 60% of the residents of Michigan have no say in the matter? Tell the fed judges to pack up and leave the state, because now they have no say in the matter.
The 10th amendment was written for a reason, and this is it.

[ForYourChildren]

Good for the Governor. Need to see more of this.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It’s time for gays to get back in the closet and STAY THERE.

[Amendment10]

... in violation of the Equal Protection Clause ...

Virginia Minor had argued to the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett that, as a citizen, the Equal Protections Clause of the newly ratified 14th Amendment gave her the right to vote on the basis of her citizenship, regardless of the fact that she was a woman.

However, the Supreme Court decided against Minor, arguing that the 14th Amendment added no new rights to the Constitution, but only strengthened existing protections.

"3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had (emphasis added)." --Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

Another way to look at the Equal Protections Clause is the following. At the time of Minor, given that the state in question allowed only men to vote, the state couldn't single out Irish Catholic men, for example, and prohibit them from voting.

Given that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clarifies that the amendment applies only the Constitution's priviliges and immunities to the states, the activist federal judge in question is evidently trying to get away with cherry-picking the Equal Protections Clause to push the gay agenda, probably what he was indoctrinated to do in law school. Such judges get away with doing such things partly because of low-information voters imo.