Michigan Ban on Domestic Partner Benefits Struck Down by Federal Judge

[Hissyspit]

Source: MLive

Michigan ban on domestic partner benefits struck down by federal judge

By Brian Smith | [e-mail]
on June 28, 2013 at 12:13 PM, updated June 28, 2013 at 12:15 PM

LANSING -- A federal judge has struck down as unconstitutional a Michigan law barring public employers from offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners.
The decision from U.S. District Judge David S. Lawson prevents Gov. Rick Snyder and state officials from enforcing the 2011 law prohibiting cities, counties and other public employers from offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

A group of five same-sex couples had filed suit against Snyder and the state alleging the law violated the U.S. Constitution by violating due process and equal protection rights. Attorneys for the state had argued the couples lacked standing to bring the suit and had not suffered an identifiable injury as a result of the law.

Read more: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/06/michigan_ban_on_domestic_partn.html

[LonePirate]

1. This should be the first of many verdicts where anti-LGBT laws are overturned.

[William769]

2. Good!

These cases will be coming out of the woodwork now & SCOTUS gave the means.

[lark]

3. Side benefit

Scalia is probably totally pissed about this and getting madder by the minute. His precious religious bullying isn't being accepted much anymore, poor little baby.




edited for typo

[William769]

4. He predicted it in his dissent back in 2003 in Lawrence V. Texas

Was one thing he was right about.

All that rage and a seat on the highest court and he's fucked (so to speak).

[lark]

9. Can you imagine how mad he is at Kennedy?

The other 4 he'd expect, but Kennedy, his bosom right wing thug deserted him this time. LOL

[William769]

10. I think it's safe to say they are not bosom buddies anymore.

Although Scalia should visit Texas, He should find some good company there.

[spooky3]

12. There are so many nice, stress free spots to retire these days. Hope Scalia will explore that option

[William769]

13. He should check out Isle of Lesbos

Lets help put the last nail in.

[LiberalFighter]

17. I would prefer he go retire to Somalia.

[Dustlawyer]

15. Not from me he wouldn't!

[knitter4democracy]

5. W00t, w00t! That's great news!

Maybe we can turn this state around after all!

[sheshe2]

6. Big Kick and Rec!

Yeeeees~

[chillfactor]

7. thank goodness for the intelligence and constitutional knowledge....

of the judge.....Snyder and his croonies are the epitomy of ruthlessness and have no hearts, no souls, and have to share one brain which fires on only one synap

[closeupready]

8. Good. Glad to see these legislative shackles being removed.

K&R

[iandhr]

11. Little by little step by step...

... we will win the battle for equality.

Progress has always been slow.

[broadcaster75201]

14. Full, Faith & Creiit is, max, 5-7 years away nt

nt

[plantwomyn]

16. Section 1

of the 14th Amendment.

[alp227]

18. David M. Lawson actually.

Clinton nominee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Lawson

[idwiyo]

19. K&R

[happyslug]

20. This will be modified, due to the recent Supreme Court Decisions

First, The Supreme Court put a strong restrictions on Standing. That the people who filed this action had suffered NO direct harm, under the decision of the US Supreme Court, might mean they had no standing and thus the case may have to be dismissed. Read the actual decisions, they do NOT rule that Gay Marriages are constitutional, but in the one on California Proposition 8, that the people defending it had no standing to defend it. In the DOMA Case, that issues of Marriage is something that is reserved to the States to determine and any FEDERAL Law on Marriages is unconstitutional for what is Marriage is reserved to the States.

Second, at least four of the Justices were willing to rule that Marriage is up the State and that a state could permit gay marriages or ban gay marriages, either way, they would be no violation of the Federal Constitution. The five justices who voted to uphold the decision in California, upheld that decision on the narrow grounds that no one but the Governor of the state could defend a state statute from a Federal ruling that the State Statute was unconstitutional and thus when the Governor refused to file the appeal, no one else had standing to file that appeal.

In simple terms, this decision by this Federal District Judge will have to be revised. The big question is how much weight will he give to the dissent and they position that what a State does in regard to Marriage is reserved to the State alone.

Read the actual Decisions, the rationale used by the Majority in both cases are NOT good. The Environmentalists are in open revolt for they see themselves as the next victim of these decisions (i.e. they suffered no harm, and thus have no standing in any pollution case, and in any environmental case only the Federal Government or a State Government have standing to stop pollution).

Recent Supreme Court Cases:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx

US Supreme Court on California Proposition 8:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

US Supreme Court on DOMA:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf