Quantcast
U.S. & World

US recognizes Michigan same-sex couple marriages

Comments

Return To Article
  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    March 28, 2014 5:04 p.m.

    This action is a grave insult to the rights of Michigan voters to define their own constitution.

    The federal ruling was also majorly flawed in that it was brought about in part by excluding the testimony of Sherrif Girgis. Such exclusion of people who have thought deeply and written on the meaning and scope of marriage from testifying has no justification other than pure and simple animus against anyone who understands marriage in a way different than what cultural elites have decreed it to be.

    Well, those of us who believe that marriage is meant to be a permanent, conjugal relationship focused on rearing children have a right to this belief, and a right to advance create public policy that will align with this understanding of marriage. We are not seeking to penalize any behavior, and we make no inquiry about people's sexual orientation. We only make a requirement that they fit the basic form of a man and a woman.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 28, 2014 6:08 p.m.

    @john

    so as has been pointed out before the "voters" of michigan (or any other state for that matter) cannot vote away the federally contracted rights of individuals. as far as Sherrif Girgis just because some one has "thought deeply" and "written" about an issue does not make them an expert in the field or gives them the right to testify .

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 28, 2014 6:31 p.m.

    sorry that should be protected not contracted, though it is still somewhat fitting

  • USU_Logan Logan, UT
    April 3, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    @John
    “The federal ruling was also majorly flawed in that it was brought about in part by excluding the testimony of Sherrif Girgis”

    He is a law student, not a lawyer
    He is a PhD student, doesn’t have a PhD degree