Gay Marriage | Michigan | News | Rick Snyder

Governor: Michigan to Hold Off on Recognizing Gay Marriages Performed Over Weekend

Approximately 300 gay couples married in Michigan on Saturday, one day after a federal judge struck down the state's ban on gay marriage. On Sunday, the Sixth Court Circuit of Appeals issued a temporary stay on the marriage ruling until Wednesday when an emergency appeal could be heard.

SnyderMichigan Governor Rick Snyder said late on Sunday that state agencies would wait to recognize the marriages that have been performed, the AP reports:

“We are extremely sensitive to feelings on this issue and are hoping for a swift resolution for all involved,” said Sara Wurfel, spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Snyder...

...“We are not saying that we aren’t or won’t recognize the marriages that happened on Saturday, but that we’re awaiting further court or legal direction on this complex, unusual situation,” Wurfel told The Associated Press in an email Sunday.

“Either way, this can’t be construed one way or another as not recognizing the validity of the same sex marriages.”

You may have missed this MICHIGAN info...
Michigan's Marriage Equality Ruling: A Summary and Analysis [tlrd]
Federal Appeals Court Suspends Gay Marriages in Michigan Until at Least Wednesday [tlrd]
Here is Joyful Video of the First Gay Marriages in Michigan: WATCH [tlrd]
First Gay Couple Marries in Ingham County, Michigan: PHOTO [tlrd]
At Least Four Michigan Counties to Issue Marriage Licenses to Gay Couples Today [tlrd]
Federal Judge Strikes Down Michigan's Ban on Gay Marriage: VIDEO [tlrd)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. #puremichigan.
    Sigh, for a moment we were not second class citizens.

    Posted by: Tom | Mar 24, 2014 8:05:01 AM


  2. Michigan Republicans don't mind wasting taxpayer money as long as it's to hurt families that look different than their own.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 24, 2014 8:11:00 AM


  3. We are not saying we won't recognize these marriages." Honey, the courts aren't going to give you a choice!

    Posted by: jmartindale | Mar 24, 2014 8:17:32 AM


  4. He's out of touch with the public and up for reelection in November. Let's get the word out and have him defeated in the fall. Enough of these republicans telling us how our families should look and be!

    Posted by: Dave | Mar 24, 2014 8:28:09 AM


  5. "...this can’t be construed...as not recognizing the validity of the same sex marriages.”

    How else can it be construed?

    Posted by: Keppler | Mar 24, 2014 8:38:33 AM


  6. Is the GOP really so stupid as to think they can still win this?

    Yes. Yes, they are.

    Posted by: Gregory In Seattle | Mar 24, 2014 9:22:36 AM


  7. "We are not saying that we aren’t or won’t recognize the marriages"

    Liar. You're saying you won't recognize them, and will need to be forced by a court to follow the law, which is clear on this.

    These marriages were legal when and where conducted, and you must recognize them.

    Posted by: Randy | Mar 24, 2014 11:17:59 AM


  8. This action further demonstrates for the appeals court the state's disregard for the law.

    Posted by: Rawn | Mar 24, 2014 12:48:41 PM


  9. Snyder is not stupid, but he is a Republican, both houses of the state legislature are Republican-controlled, most of US Reps from Michigan are Republican... And he knows there's plenty of Republicans who think just like Ajema.

    Posted by: Victor | Mar 24, 2014 1:23:16 PM


  10. I'd love to see Michigan activists picket the courthouse for this hearing. They should demand transparency from the court. There's a standard test that courts use to decide when to grant a stay. Marriage equality proponents win In the district courts that have applied this test (i.e., marriages are not put on hold). However, higher courts have been overturning these wins *without explanation,* seemingly applying a double standard to marriage equality wins, but refusing to admit it. This should be called out publicly and loudly as evasive and discriminatory.

    The traditional test for a stay was standardized by SCOTUS in 1987 in the case of Hilton v. Braunskill.

    Posted by: JJ | Mar 24, 2014 2:01:45 PM


  11. If the judge's decision is overturned, as it has already been temporarily and likely will be permanently, then these so-called "marriages" will be null and void from the start, just like the ones in Utah. Of course, Eric Holder can always make another video about federal recognition, which is really strange, as it violates the central proposition of U.S. v. Windsor that states get to define marriage.

    Posted by: TKinSC | Mar 24, 2014 7:29:11 PM


  12. Factually incorrect and delusional as usual, @TKINSC: Neither the judge's decision in Utah nor in Michigan have been "overturned," and there's absolutely no indication they will be. The state failed miserably to defend the unconstitutional ban.

    Stays are completely different than overturning a decision--Legal 101 you seem incapable of grasping. The legal marriages of same-sex couples in Utah are far from null and void (no one predicts they will be undone) and are currently recognized by the federal government, and it has every right to recognize them. The same will be true in Michigan.

    All the court decisions since Windsor--and there have been many--are pro-equality. That's the trajectory. You also completely misunderstand the implications of the Windsor decision.

    Posted by: Ernie | Mar 24, 2014 7:54:30 PM


  13. The stay was improperly granted under long term precedent, and the judges know it because they gave lip service to the four criteria, then FAILED to apply any of the test. They just punted to a SCOTUS decision-without-explanation in the Utah case, where SCOTUS failed to expressly apply the test too. Such a cagey failure to apply the law by SCOTUS doesn't set a precedent for the lower courts, but the 6th Cir. panel made the false yet convenient presumption that it did. They didn't follow the law because they are either cowardly dinosaurs afraid of change, or cowardly mice so timid they defer to unexplained peremptory rulings by SCOTUS. Lifetime tenure is suppose to give federal judges the courage to follow the law regardless of consequences. I blame Congress for turning judicial confirmation hearings into a filter that ejects all but the most milquetoast candidates. Two judges on the 6th Cir panel failed the American people and our judicial system, and they should be called out by the media for it.

    Posted by: Marco Luxe | Mar 26, 2014 4:50:58 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Man Performs Katy Perry's 'Dark Horse' in the Styles of 20 Artists from Sinatra to Slipknot: VIDEO« «