Federal Appeals Court Suspends Gay Marriages in Michigan Until at Least Wednesday

Michigan

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a stay on Michigan's marriage equality ruling until at least Wednesday, the AP reports. The issuing of marriage licenses in the state has been put on hold.

More than 200 gay couples married in four counties across Michigan on Saturday.

The Detroit News reports:

“To allow a more reasoned consideration of the motion to stay, it is ordered that the district court’s judgment is temporarily stayed until Wednesday,” the order read.

Earlier Saturday, the appeals court issued a one-page order directing the attorneys for the same sex couple who had sought to get married to respond to Attorney General Bill Schuette's request for an emergency stay by noon Tuesday.

The order was entered by the appeals court clerk, Deborah Hunt, and didn't disclose which three-judge panel has been assigned to hear the emergency appeal.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. A more reasoned...? You mean, 'Now hold on, you stupid fa ggots, we gotta find three bigots who will rule that you don't count as human beings.'

    Posted by: Robert | Mar 22, 2014 5:23:40 PM


  2. Oh cut the drama. Straight people can't enter into same-sex "marriages" either. You don't hear them complaining about not counting as human beings.

    Posted by: TKinSC | Mar 22, 2014 6:18:12 PM


  3. @TKINSC: Your argument would be laughed out of court. Dismissed.

    Posted by: Ernie | Mar 22, 2014 6:59:14 PM


  4. @TKINSC You're certainly disingenuous. You know full well that straight people aren't sexually and romantically attracted to their own gender. The inequality that is at hand is that gay couple can't marry who they are capable of loving. Straight people CAN. Period.

    Posted by: DavidinChelseaMA | Mar 22, 2014 7:41:19 PM


  5. It seems the trolls are becoming more vociferous with each loss, bite it.

    Posted by: Bollox | Mar 22, 2014 8:01:05 PM


  6. @David - Many gays get married, and I'd venture to bet that on the whole their marriages are relatively loving and happy ones. But even if we take your statement as accurate, it is a gay person's condition, not the state, that prevents him from loving someone of the opposite sex.

    Nor was marriage defined as it is as part of some effort to hurt or dehumanize gays. Marriage simply is the legal union of a male and a female (primarily but not exclusively to unite them and the children they create into a legal family). Therefore, if gays cannot marry someone they are capable of loving, that is because of the definitions of "gay" and "marry", not because of a sadistic state.

    @bollox - The only losses have been a 5-4 squeaker at the SCOTUS, where the plaintiffs had a legally recognized (although by definition not real) marriage under state law, and from federal judges who think they are so high and mighty that they don't even bother to stay their orders until appeals courts (and eventually SCOTUS) have had their say. Judge Shelby got smacked down in Utah. Judge Friedman has just been smacked down in Michigan. Quite frankly, we all know SCOTUS is going to decide the issue eventually, so these district court opinions are really not worth the paper they're written on, except to the extent that they give rogue county clerks cover for opening their offices on Saturday specifically in order to violate state law.

    Oh, and at SCOTUS, there are 4 rock-solid votes to uphold gay marriage bans. All they need is 1 of the other 5 to make the distinction between state and federal law. Nothing is for certain, but I like those odds.

    Posted by: TKinSC | Mar 22, 2014 8:59:49 PM


  7. Children have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with legal marriage. There are too many unwed mothers (and fathers!), divorced "familes," and married male/female couples *without* children for children to be a considered AT ALL as a factor in the legality of marriage.

    This constant yes/no, go/stay stuff is bullcrap. Just get it done, confirmed and going across the nation in one fell swoop.

    Posted by: Drummond | Mar 22, 2014 9:18:23 PM


  8. @TKINSC: If you really think Shelby and Friedman got smacked down and that all these decisions in favor of equality aren't worth the paper they're written on, you really understand nothing about how the judicial process works. Even equality opponents see the writing on the wall: the state patchwork is unsustainable, federal marriage equality is on its way, sooner rather than later.

    The only person who got smacked down here was Regnerus & Co--that was the best the state had, and their testimony was disastrous. They were bought to turn back the tide, and only managed to disgrace themselves and take equality forward.

    Posted by: Ernie | Mar 22, 2014 9:22:09 PM


  9. Don't know what you mean by definition. You must be referring to the religious definition. If you look up all the major dictionaries, the term "marriage" has already been redefined. Of course marriage ban is not just a definition. It has legal consequences.

    Posted by: simon | Mar 22, 2014 9:27:19 PM


  10. Of course those who are under the illusion that the state bans will last are facing long odds. Even if the current SCOTUS has 4 solid votes for upholding the bans, future SCOTUS may be different. You only need to make it once and the ruling is irreversible.

    Posted by: simon | Mar 22, 2014 9:33:28 PM


  11. homosexual-sodomy-obsessed tkinsc needs to update his dictionary and throw away his bible since it's confused him.

    western societies are agreeing that same sex couples fit into the definition of marriage.

    Merriam Webster.

    Full Definition of MARRIAGE
    1
    a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

    whatever narcissistic anti-gay bigot tkinsc personally believes is not very relevant to the cultural shift that is occurring.

    even maggie gallagher has admitted defeat.

    south carolina is known for its rampant racism, sexism, and anti-gay bigotry.

    Posted by: ascanius1 | Mar 22, 2014 11:39:16 PM


  12. @TKINSC: "federal judges who think they are so high and mighty that they don't even bother to stay their orders"

    Silly bigot. The rules for granting a stay aren't dictated by ego. They're governed by rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and by a four-pronged test first articulated in Virginia Petroleum Job. Ass'n v. Federal Power Com'n in 1958, and later standardized by SCOTUS in Hilton v. Braunskill in 1987, which they recently affirmed in Nken v. Holder in 2009. A stay in the Michigan case is not automatic, per rule 62, and the state is not entitled to a stay without satisfying the Hilton test. The Reagan-appointed judge acted according to the procedure that the district courts have been using for many decades.

    "Judge Shelby got smacked down in Utah."

    When SCOTUS stayed the Utah ruling, they didn't give any reason. They gave lower courts no guidance as to whether and how to apply that decision to future cases. They said nothing to countermand future applications of the above standard procedure. Thus, courts *should* be obliged to continue following that procedure, as Judge Friedman has. The real question is: why did the Oklahoma and Virginia courts (and others?) automatically stay their rulings?

    Posted by: JJ | Mar 23, 2014 2:55:37 AM


  13. TKINSC was destroyed.

    Posted by: Sergio | Mar 23, 2014 1:09:36 PM


  14. I am the tinkerbell from South Carolina

    Posted by: tkinsc | Mar 23, 2014 3:05:20 PM


  15. You are Rick, aka Ken Cuccinelli, Aka The Cooch, closet case extraordinaire.

    Yo Jesus ain' gonna save you, boy!

    Posted by: Robert | Mar 23, 2014 6:11:00 PM


  16. JJ makes an important point regarding the propriety of issuing a stay after judgment. The media must expose courts that disregard the Hilton criteria, including the SCOTUS decision-without-comment in Utah's application for a stay. With such a cagey lack of guidance from SCOTUS, lower courts are throwing up their hands, and issuing stays in violation of Hilton. The media must publicize this to let the courts know we're watching. Courts should expect to get called out for not doing their job if they don't apply Hilton, but let justice be improperly delayed.

    Posted by: Marco Luxe | Mar 23, 2014 8:47:53 PM


  17. So many falsehoods to debunk, so little time....

    "Children have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with legal marriage."

    Really? Then why deny "marriage equality" to loving and committed brother-sister or father-son couples?

    "Even equality opponents see the writing on the wall: the state patchwork is unsustainable, federal marriage equality is on its way, sooner rather than later."

    Per Windsor, there's no such thing as "federal marriage equality". States control marriage, period, subject only to the usual constitutional guarantees (no racial discrimination, no outright denials of the right to marry, etc.). The state patchwork is quite sustainable, and if the minority of states with gay "marriage" disagree they can always get rid of that perverted notion and go back to using the real definition of marriage like the rest of the country.

    "homosexual-sodomy-obsessed tkinsc"

    I haven't mentioned sodomy, but since it has been brought up, as far as I'm concerned if a guy wants to unite his sperm with another guy's fecal matter, and the other guy consents and both are adults, and it's kept out of the public eye, I couldn't care less. But normal people with common sense realize that's not a marriage, and shouldn't be forced to pretend that it is.

    "(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"

    If this sort of relationship must be acknowledged and given a name, "civil union" is more accurate and appropriate. Although personally I prefer "roommates with benefits".

    "even maggie gallagher has admitted defeat"

    With all due respect to Ms. Gallagher and Justice Scalia, they give up way too easily. The four votes to uphold DOMA are rock-solid votes to uphold gay-"marriage" bans, meaning that all five votes to strike down DOMA will have to agree that they were just kidding when they said states have the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage. Nothing is certain, but the odds against that are far better than even money.

    "The real question is: why did the Oklahoma and Virginia courts (and others?) automatically stay their rulings?"

    Easy. Because SCOTUS did the exact same thing in the Utah case, signaling that when they said states get to define marriage, they meant it. The only question remaining is, how many more times will judges have to get smacked down by higher courts before they stop using Windsor to justify single-handedly overriding the will of the voters and turning their personal preference for 50-state gay "marriage" into irrevocable law? I'll start the over/under at 2.

    Posted by: TKinSC | Mar 23, 2014 10:56:53 PM


  18. I like to be smacked down and verbally abused in a gay blog. I like it :). Is there something wrong with me? But I am "normal".

    Posted by: tkinsc aka tinkerbell | Mar 23, 2014 11:28:33 PM


  19. @TKINSC: For someone with "so little time" you sure spend a lot of time swimming against the tide. Unless you're making these arguments in court, you're wasting your time, and if you're making these arguments in court, they would be immediately disregarded. You show your hand in your sodomy discussion, as your personal issues and obsession with homosexuality cloud rational thought and cogent argument.

    Rapidly expanding legal consensus + ever-increasing majority in favor of equality = end of marriage inequality. Get used to it, dude. Worry about your own life.

    Posted by: Ernie | Mar 23, 2014 11:28:55 PM


  20. My life is devoted to God. I don't have a girlfriend or even a friend.

    Posted by: tkinsc aka tinkerbell | Mar 23, 2014 11:45:37 PM


  21. Tides come in, tides go out. Marriage will always be the union of a man and a woman, regardless of what eventually happens with either the courts or popular opinion as to whether or not we should pretend otherwise. But in the meantime, more than half the states have a constitutional ban on such pretense, so it's gonna take a pretty big tidal wave to knock down that wall.

    @my impostor - "Ooh look I am so cool using somebody else's username to insult them. This is so much cooler than presenting a valid refutation of their arguments."

    Posted by: TKinSC | Mar 24, 2014 3:01:51 AM


  22. @tkinsc lol "marriage will always be the union of a man and a woman"

    no one is doubting that. but it will also include same-sex couples.

    again. throw away your bible. religions come, religions go. there's no credible evidence for anything supernatural, much less the barbaric abrahamic god and the dead jew on a stick before whom you grovel.

    your concerns about "sodomy-based marriage" -which you do mention in other places that you post your bigotry--tips your superstitious hand.

    as for anal sex, millions more straights engage it than do gays. and a lot of gays don't do it. straight couples have been engaging in it since at least the beginning of recorded history. most who do it regularly clean themselves before. and of course vaginas are not free of fecal bacteria either.

    as the industrialized west passes into the post-christian era, rabid anti-gay bigots like you and the bronze and iron age hebrew mythology on which you base your twisted, perverted world view will become increasingly marginalized. and that's a good thing.

    what consenting jebusites do in the privacy of their homes and their churches is their business, but bring your superstitous mumbo-jumbo into the public square and expect increasing push back and increasing ridicule.

    also expect same-sex marriage to be legal nationwide. and we will all be laughing at vicious bigots like you.

    Posted by: ascanius1 | Mar 24, 2014 5:30:25 AM


  23. Don't worry. I am so "normal" that I am going to marry a woman and I always will come here to be insulted.

    Posted by: tkinsc aka tinkerbell | Mar 24, 2014 6:50:28 AM


  24. ASCANIUS1:
    Though I hate it, I have done that anal thing already with a man. I know. It was even dirtier than you can imagine. If you have ever watched Pasolini's SALO, you know what I mean.
    But I am "straight".

    Posted by: tkinsc aka tinkerbell | Mar 24, 2014 6:59:23 AM


  25. Though I am so cool and confident in real life, I always need to come to this gay blog to get some validation.

    Posted by: tkinsc aka tinkerbell | Mar 24, 2014 7:08:00 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Would Rick Santorum Have Voted For Arizona's Anti-Gay 'Religious Freedom' Bill? 'Absolutely' — VIDEO« «