Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
In a long-awaited and very disappointing ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that any partnership benefits granted to gay couples, even those as part of negotiated union agreements, are unconstitutional under the anti-gay marriage amendment, Proposal 2, passed in 2004. After the passage of that amendment, the attorney general ruled that a state contract that included such benefits was illegal and that ruling was challenged on behalf of several cities and public universities in the state.
The district court ruled that Proposal 2 did not affect such benefits, but that was overturned by the appeals court and the supreme court upheld the appeals court ruling. The tragic irony of this is that despite the "save the children" rhetoric from the anti-gay crowd, the first people affected by this ruling will be the children of gay couples who may lose health care and other protections as a result.
I was on a conference call with various state organizations representing the plaintiffs and one of the plaintiffs, Tom Patrick, spoke about how he came to be involved with this. He and his partner Dennis had health benefits through both employers (one a public high school, one a public university), but they have four adopted children and one foster child from ages 6-13 and decided that it would be better for one of them to only work part time to spend more time caring for the kids.
Tom moved to part-time work and was covered by Dennis' healthcare policy, which covered domestic partners, as were the children. But under this ruling, that healthcare is now voided and Tom either has to go back to work full time or give up his own health benefits. If this was a straight couple, everyone would recognize the damage this does to the family, but the religious right simply doesn't care how it affects this family. "Pro-family"? Not even close.
What really makes me angry about this is that the organization that wrote, filed and promoted Proposal 2, Citizens for the Protection of Marriage (CPM), reassured voters time and time again that the amendment would not void such benefits. In Judge Kelly's dissent, she noted numerous statements from that organization explaining the proposal to the public. Like this one, from one of CPM's attorneys before the state canvassing board:
[T]here would certainly be nothing to preclude [a] public employer from extending [health-care] benefits, if they so chose, as a matter of contract between employer and employee, to say domestic dependent benefits . . . [to any] person, and it could be your cat. So they certainly could extend it as a matter of contract...[A]n employer, as a matter of contract between employer and employee, can offer benefits to whomever the employer wants to. And if it wants to be my spouse, if it wants to be my domestic partner--however that's defined under the terms of your contract or my cat, the employer can do that.
Judge Kelly further noted:
In its campaign to win over voters, CPM made a number of additional public statements that were consistent with Mr. Doster's testimony before the Board of State Canvassers. For example, Marlene Elwell, the campaign director for CPM, was quoted in USA Today as stating that "[t]his has nothing to do with taking benefits away. This is about marriage between a man and a woman." Similarly, CPM communications director Kristina Hemphill was quoted as stating that "[t]his Amendment has nothing to do with benefits . . . . It's just a diversion from the real issue."
There was so much concern over this issue that CPM put out a brochure insuring voters that if they voted for the amendment, that the bill is "not about rights or benefits." The majority disingenuously dismisses those statements by saying that statements of intent are irrelevant when the text of a statute is clear. But of course, the text is not at all clear on this and that is proven by the fact that there was so much controversy over what it would and would not prohibit if passed.
Judge Kelly correctly notes that the public undoubtedly relied upon the innumerable statements from the proponents of the amendment as to what it would do as authoritative statements of the meaning of the text and made their decisions based upon those statements. This is a very, very bad ruling.
Comments
I disagree. Its not a very, very bad ruling. Its a very, very bad law. The court did its job. Now its time for the people to do their job and repeal this idiotic amendment.
The one positive aspect of this is that its puts the final nail in the notion that the phrase "or similar union for any purpose" is inheritable benign.
Posted by: yoshi | May 8, 2008 10:19 AM
Are there plans to appeal? I think this is a good case to do so.
At some point, all of these state constitutional amendments run up against several federal rulings about freedom of conscience and privacy, etc.
I think a very simple argument can be made that this is sexual (gender based) discrimination, which is explicitely against federal laws. A SCOTUS ruling could rule all those state amendments null and void, much like many of the blue laws that are till on the books in many states.
I'd be interested to see how the current court would rule, though.
I'll donate to this if they want to appeal.
Posted by: FastLane | May 8, 2008 10:29 AM
Is there a link to the text of the ruling?
Posted by: andrew | May 8, 2008 10:31 AM
"[I]ts puts the final nail in the notion that the phrase "or similar union for any purpose" is inheritable benign."
"Benign" is in the eye of the beholder. To the average fundie, this result is exactly what they want. They WANT people to lose their health coverage and adoptive children to suffer. They hope that by doing so, it will hurt the gay people, who they really are after. It's a totally fucked up mindset, like the fundies who aren't in favor of the HPV vaccination, because the hope that the fear of cervical cancer will reduce premarital sex, but don't give a damn if their stance ends up killing women unnecessarily.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | May 8, 2008 10:35 AM
Ed - I believe your perspective on the following would be most beneficial:
Clearly MI's constitutional amendment violates a handful of the federal constitutions clauses/amendments. This begs the question assuming one agrees the languge of the amendment is clear and unambiguous: Does a MI Supreme Court justice strike down the law because it violates the federal protection of rights or does a MI justice rule as the majority did given my assumption? I understand there is a third perspective per your comments here Ed, but I'm interested in the obligations of a MI justice on these types of matters rather than whether their ruling is technically correct.
I agree with yoshi this a horrible law. My question revolves around the duty of a MI Supreme Court justice when a state constitution issue violates the protections inherent in the Federal Constitution.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 8, 2008 10:39 AM
And on a more positive note. Here the government has amended 99 peices of legislation that discriminate against same sex couples in respect to health care, power of attorney, pensions and superannuation (amongst others). No word on same sex marriages though.
Posted by: DingoJack | May 8, 2008 10:40 AM
Looks like the CPM took to heart the lessons they learned from our president.
Posted by: twincats | May 8, 2008 10:45 AM
The Opinion
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | May 8, 2008 10:50 AM
I agree that this is an unfortunate ruling based on a terrible law. It will be interesting to see how the States' Defense of Marriage Acts can stand against the precedents established by recent Federal rulings in Lawrence et al and the Texas Sex Toy case, not to mention federal anti-discrimination laws already in the Constitution itself.
But, I would bet the current SCOTUS would search for any and all rationale to not hear the arguments if such a case should come before them.
Posted by: rachel | May 8, 2008 10:55 AM
I agree that this is an unfortunate ruling based on a terrible law. It will be interesting to see how the States' Defense of Marriage Acts can stand against the precedents established by recent Federal rulings in Lawrence et al and the Texas Sex Toy case, not to mention federal anti-discrimination laws already in the Constitution itself.
But, I would bet the current SCOTUS would search for any and all rationale to not hear the arguments if such a case should come before them.
Posted by: rachel | May 8, 2008 10:56 AM
I really don't want to see how the current Supreme Court would rule on this. The current court has displayed low concern for the rights of the discriminated-against. I fear that this Court would try to find a way to greenlight such discrimination as a way of ensuring that gay rights stop at what was guaranteed by Lawrence v. Texas and go no further.
Posted by: Sanjiv Sarwate | May 8, 2008 10:58 AM
I agree that this is an unfortunate ruling based on a terrible law. It will be interesting to see how the States' Defense of Marriage Acts can stand against the precedents established by recent Federal rulings in Lawrence et al and the Texas Sex Toy case, not to mention federal anti-discrimination laws already in the Constitution itself.
But, I would bet the current SCOTUS would search for any and all rationale to not hear the arguments if such a case should come before them.
Posted by: rachel | May 8, 2008 11:01 AM
Maybe Ivy league educated, highly trained professional men and women, who happen to be gay or lesbian, will move offshore to more friendly states. So in 10 - 20 years time when the US is facing a shortage of professionals just remember why this occured. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 8, 2008 11:04 AM
I'm with yoshi on this one. It's a bad law (or, more properly, amendment to the Michigan Constitution) passed using disingenuous and dishonest rhetoric, not a bad ruling. Indeed, unless state supreme courts can strike down an provision in a state constitution because it conflicts with federal law or the federal Constitution, the judges ruled the only way the law as written allowed them to. From here, unless I'm mistaken, this amendment to the state constitution can only be repealed by being put on the ballot again for a vote or if a federal court strikes it down as unconstitutional.
Posted by: Orac | May 8, 2008 11:06 AM
DingoJack:
Nah, they can just move here to Boston where we are reasonable about this stuff. Frankly we could use all we can get, have them start up some businesses. I need a job.
Posted by: jba | May 8, 2008 11:11 AM
In the meantime, Hillary can come and lead all her "working class" people who will remain in the rust belt. And the cities, towns and universities can be staffed by "good old boys."
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 8, 2008 11:17 AM
I'm a student at Western Michigan University. I chose Western over other schools because, in the end, the tiebreaker was a couple of classes being offered in my major at Western and not at other places.
When I got to Western three years ago, I found that the classes, while still on the theoretical list of classes offered, was no longer being taught. Why? The teacher qualified to teach the courses had moved, with his partner, to a university in California, in anticipation of this exact ruling.
I'm unmarried and straight with no kids or insurance. But I know exactly what negative effect this law has had on my life.
Posted by: chancelikely | May 8, 2008 11:37 AM
Appalling from beginning to end.
To clarify, is this relevant to private employees, or only to state/university employees? How is the UAW affected?
Posted by: Ben M | May 8, 2008 11:39 AM
The one bright spot I see in this is that many of the government agencies to which this ruling applies have already reworded their policies so that benefits can still be given without running afoul of Proposal 2. Instead of extending benefits based on domestic partnership they are extending benefits to adults that have lived together for a certain amount of time, are unmarried, share finances and are unrelated. It won't help everyone. But at least it's something.
I of course think it's a ridiculous that they have to jump through such legal hoops just to make sure families get the coverage they need and deserve. I'm just trying to find a bright side to stave off the alternating pull of rage and melancholy.
Ok, one short concession to my darker nature, fucking bigoted, small-minded, petty assholes! You ignorant barbarians! So full of righteous pride you revel in the suffering of others, people whose only crime is to love. Wake up to the suffering you're causing. You want to fight evil? Start by looking in the mirror.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 8, 2008 11:39 AM
Once all the gay professionals move out I'm guessing the real moral majority will say "Relgious right go F**K yourself" and will promptly change the laws.
When it comes to god or mammon my moneys on the latter. The wheels of mammon grind slowly, but esceedingly fine -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 8, 2008 11:47 AM
In the case of a state Supreme Court interpreting the state's Constitution, there usually isn't much grounds for an appeal in Federal Court. There would have to some issue of Constitutional importance, not just a finding that some Federal policy is implicated.
In this case, there is the issue of impairment of contracts, but states get away with that all the time under the guise of public policy. Then there is the approach taken in Loving (rest in peace, Mrs. Loving) where the Supremes argued that they weren't taking the definition and regulation of marriage away from the states, they were just affirming an unenumerated right possessed by citizens. Importantly, they also could hang their hat on the 13th Amendment.
Unfortunately, we never managed to pass the ERA back in the '70s and '80s when we had the chance. So that possible line of reasoning is undercut.
Just an aside, but all these debates about insurance go away with a single-payer universal system. I'm just sayin'.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 8, 2008 12:11 PM
It isn't a horrible LAW. Wrong wording. It's a horrible AMENDMENT. If it were a horrible LAW, it'd be so much easier to rectify. But being an amendment to the state's constitution, good luck getting that changed all over again.
Posted by: Angela | May 8, 2008 12:13 PM
And I'd just like to respectfully point out that "federal" isn't capitalized (unless it's part of a pronoun, such as an agency name, an act, etc.).
The editor in me cringes at excessive (and erroneous) capitalization.
Posted by: Angela | May 8, 2008 12:15 PM
anybody wanna run a betting pool on how long that'll take? put me down for ten years. i'm being optimistic, i think.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | May 8, 2008 12:41 PM
In answer to multiple comments above:
On whether it's a bad law or a bad ruling: it's both, of course, but regardless of whether it's a bad law, it's still a bad ruling. Even if the law is bad, the court's faulty interpretation of the text is making it much worse.
On a federal challenge: unlikely, at least as an appeal. This case was only asking for a declaratory ruling of statutory interpretation, it was not a constitutional challenge to the law. If they want to go to federal court they're going to have to start over at the district level and go up and it's going to have to be an entirely different case. The Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to hear an appeal of a state supreme court's statutory ruling interpreting a state law.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 8, 2008 12:59 PM
The real fundamental flaw in all of this Michigan crap: it should not be possible for a constitution to be amended by a simple majority vote.
Better still would be that all constitutional amendments should be decided upon different days from any general election so as to not involve the politics of turnout for a particular candidate to influence it. A constitution should be independent of all other politics, something decided upon because it matters, not because its convenient. Amending a constitution should never be convenient; not for the proposers, not for the approvers.
So may it someday be, but only AFTER we've managed to undo this mess in the 12+ states that have this bullshit (including Virginia's which is even more restrictive than Michigan's).
Posted by: Joe Shelby | May 8, 2008 1:52 PM
Let me see if I understand - does this mean that private employers cannot extend family health coverage to gay employees?
Posted by: Art | May 8, 2008 1:52 PM
Art-
No, this affects public employers only, not private companies.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 8, 2008 2:08 PM
At least there's some good news elsewhere in the US:
Same-sex marriage ban likely dead in Pa. Senate
DD
Posted by: Deacon Duncan | May 8, 2008 2:14 PM
jba -- As a matter of fact, I read not long ago that Massachusetts is seeing an influx of gay couples, precisely because they can have a valid marriage in Massachusetts. This is leading to an economic benefit, because many of the couples moving to the state are indeed business owners, and are hiring once they arrive. It's not a flood of new arrivals, but it is significant nevertheless. The Michigan court's decision may result in a minor Mich -> Mass migration (if you'll pardon the alliteration).
Posted by: Dave | May 8, 2008 2:50 PM
Angela wrote:
Actually, in Michigan all it takes to change the state constitution is a simple majority vote of the electorate. It's a stupidly low requirement, making the constitution functionally equivalent to mere statutes passed by the public.
That means it might not be too hard to change. On the other hand, if the requirement had been higher, it never would have passed because it didn't have that large a margin.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 8, 2008 3:44 PM
Ed wrote:
I've seen this happen before, both in California and Oregon when I lived in those states, and where initatives are much more commonly used. It's one of the biggest problems of the initiative process--some people unfamiliar with law, but with a burning desire to solve some perceived problem, write some proposed legislation, and then assure everybody they know what it really means.The problem is, whatever they really intend, they never grasp that it is the courts that will determine what the law really means--and everything the backers say in support of it (even assuming they're being honest, and not disingenuous) has essentially no bearing on the courts' decisions.
And believe it or not, people still want amateur lawmakers (e.g., term limits), and more democracy. I'm all for a little distance between the citizens and the lawmaking process. Me and James Madison.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 8, 2008 3:50 PM
Is there a chance to get the CPM bastards sued or arrested for fraud? It appears they disseminated knowingly false information to the public in order to influence an election.
Of course, now that I think about it, that's most of politics.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 8, 2008 3:58 PM
But I doubt the existence of such documentation because as I tried to say in my prior post, the people who push these petitions honestly misunderstand the process of interpreting the law. I'm sure some of the supporters are happy with this outcome, but it's quite likely that even they didn't actually expect it.
As the old saying goes, be cautious about attributing to malice what is satisfactorily explained by ignorance.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 8, 2008 4:46 PM
James Hanley wrote:
I don't buy that. The people who've been quoted regarding the intent of the amendment are not just those who advocated the bill but those who wrote it and submitted it. The attorney for CPM testified to its meaning in front of the state canvassing board when it was submitted and that statement is cited by Judge Kelly in her dissent. His statement was unequivocal. This can't be chalked up merely to a few supporters misunderstanding the legislation themselves; the CPM flat out lied to the public about the meaning of the bill and the court is ignoring that fact.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 8, 2008 4:53 PM
Now I hesitate to bring this up because people will misquote me, miss what I am saying, and all the like, but I had an interesting conversation with a parent of a HS kid yesterday.
I was telling him how hard it was to get my students from the rougher neighborhoods to care. We were also talking about how much talent we saw on the field and how much more walked the halls of all the schools.( we were at a football camp for HS kids) He said what we all know: They cannot get the grades to play.
Then he went on to state what we all know (those of us who deal with young black males on a daily bases) that at a certain age they just quit listening and Mom can do nothing. He then went on to talk about how he handles his son. All I have scene for many years of being around this tells me he is right and it is not just with young black males.
These kids are out of control in many areas. I teach the rich of the rich right along side kids I used to teach in the ghetto. So I see it all.
My point that I was thinking about all day is how are two Mom's going to handle all this? The greatest thing these kids need is taken out of the home on purpose from day one. I cannot support that and for reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage. I am not even against gay marriage any more.
I am against kids growing up without a Father in anyway. I have to go fix some things I did with my son before I can really say anything to anyone. But I am tired of reading papers from 9 graders that look like a 5th grader wrote it. I want to help these kids but do not want to punish the other kids by slowing things down so much that they do not get what they all need for AP next year.
Anyway, I just thought I would throw that angle out there. Some of us Christians really are pro-family and work everyday among the hardest kids in this country to reach and see the affects of no Dad around.
With that said, give the damn people their healthcare and stop violating their rights. If the church people do not want them married then just refuse to marry them in the church. Other than that mind your own business and let people live their own lives.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 8, 2008 5:46 PM
I got hit by a drive-by commenter this morning on my blog (which links to this post) who cut-and-pasted a few quotes from *ahem* "homosexual activists" saying that the ruling doesn't actually prevent state employers from extending benefits to domestic partners as long as they adopt designated-beneficiary policies that do not have "same-sex partner" as an explicit criterion of eligibility. After reading some of his cited sources more completely, I find it curious that the Michigan branch of the AFA argues against MSU's proposed fix (benefits for a non-blood-relative who has cohabited with the employee for at least 18 months) as stealth DP benefits, but is a-ok with the UM's graduate employee association offering benefits to any designee of the employee's choice, including same-sex partners, just so long as they aren't offered exclusively to married spouses and same-sex partners.
Posted by: boltgirl | May 8, 2008 6:08 PM
KoI -
These kids are out of control in many areas.
Last week I was less than thirty feet away from the most recent shooting in my ghetto neighborhood. I was on my way to the light rail platform to meet my family and help carry stuff home. It was stupid fucking kids playing stupid fucking games. Guy fired from a vehicle coming around a corner, into a crowd of people. Didn't hit who he was gunning for but managed to shoot a women who happened to be in the wrong spot wrong moment, in the leg.
The intended targets ran like hell to get out of there before the police arrived, while I was trying to help keep her from bleeding out. (the bullet apparently severed an artery)
These kids (using the term loosely, late teens early twenties) have such hopeless pathetic lives that games which can result in their death, imprisonment or maiming are attractive ones. With so little concern for their own lives it isn't a wonder that they have absolutely no regard for the people around them they might hurt or kill. I haev no doubt that the guy who pulled the trigger didn't lose any sleep over accidentally shooting that women. He doesn't care that I basically had to lie to my son and promise him that I can keep him safe, after seeing that women laying on the ground and me coming home shortly after with bloody pants. I also doubt the shooter would have lost any sleep if she'd died.
So I am with you on this end. But blaming it on a lack of father is missing to much and hits the wrong target. It's not simply a lack of dad that is the problem, it's a lack of parental involvement. I promise you, those kids with a single mom who's going to kick their asses from here to tomorrow if they aren't making it in school or they're getting in trouble, are a lot less likely to get in trouble than kids from a two parent home who are ignored. Too, when kids have two parents at home it's just better for them. Mainly because they can then get the attention they need.
But what little evidence I have seen thus far indicates that the sex of those parents is not likely that important of a factor. Though I will admit that this may partly be due to overcompensation on the part of gay parents. Give it a few generations of openly gay parents raising kids and that may change some.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 8, 2008 7:49 PM
I'd like to point out that just because you don't know the answer to this question does not mean that it doesn't have one. Two moms can and has worked great for many families.
Trust me, there are a great many families that would be improved by the removal of the father, my own for example. The man had a sadistic streak in him, which is why I became an emancipated minor and got the heck out of there as a teen. Having a good father in every family is simply not going to happen.
Plus lesbian women are going to have children, whether through IVF, adoption, or (gasp) having sex with a man. Blocking same-sex marriage can't stop that. It can only make their lives more difficult, and what family needs that? In fact it does nothing to encourage families to have a father at all. So what's the point of being against it?
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 8, 2008 9:44 PM
KoI: Yes, perhaps it would be better for there to be a father in the picture, but that's not the case and not going to be the case. Therefore, is one parent better, or two of the same sex? I fail to see how two could be worse.
Besides, suppose you remove the sex from the equation? I facilitate a divorce recovery group, and last year two of the women decided that it made financial sense to move in together. That way, one didn't have to sell her house because she couldn't pay the mortgage, while the other had been thrown out by her ex. They each have two daughters, who have become the best of friends. They are no longer with the program, but they stay in touch with me, and are doing well. The one who owns the house is getting remarried next spring, and I'm curious about how that is going to work.
DuWayne: If I haven't commented earlier, I'm glad you're ok. A good life is worth fighting for, as is the worst of neighborhoods. I lived in a rough section of DC during the late 1980s, and the older women of the neighborhood decided they'd had enough and essentially shamed the gangs away. They would go wherever the young hoods were hanging around and start reading the Bible very loudly. Even gangbangers are not about to hurt a grandmother if they can help it. My landlord helped out by commiting arson on two crack houses. "You take the high road and I'll take the low road." It worked.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 8, 2008 10:06 PM
FYI, the Alaska Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion in 2005. That's mainly because the gay marriage ban in Alaska does *not* include a "similar union"-type clause. The court actually found that, by depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry, they were unfairly denied benefits that could otherwise obtain by marrying.
Naturally, some folks insisted that the gay marriage ban was intended to forbid benefits, too. Except that was never mentioned when the ban was enacted 10 years ago.
Posted by: Grumpy | May 8, 2008 11:02 PM
Out of curiosity, do any of the judges in the majority consider themselves originalists, for whom the intent of the authors of a bill ostensibly does matter, at least until it would lead to a ruling that they didn't like?
Posted by: Skemono | May 8, 2008 11:28 PM
Just to be clear, do you mean to imply that the first sentence of this paragraph has anything whatsoever to do with the third or fourth?
Posted by: Azkyorth | May 9, 2008 6:50 AM
KOI,
Raising children in a two-parent household is like so many other things in a marriage. Generally speaking, at least one of you needs to be good at making money. At least of you needs to be good at spending it wisely. At least one of you has to squeeze the toothpaste tube from the bottom. At least one of you has to provide the kind of firm leadership our society traditionally associates with fathers.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but what I want you to understand is that this is a role, not a sex. Sure, probably more women than men have trouble with this kind of assertiveness, but plenty do not and most of those who do can be trained. I remember fondly my late wife, all 4'10"/100 lbs. of her, standing her ground before a panicking 1100 lb. mare. My current fiancee trains working-line German Shepherds for protection work - powerful, willful, high-energy dogs who will rule the roost if you fail to lead the pack and make it clear that you lead. I know many women who are capable of instilling the kind of discipline these kids need. For some the skill comes naturally; for others it takes time and effort to learn.
I suspect a major issue in what you're seeing at school is that most of those single mothers did not choose their parenting situation, and have to do their best with whatever income, skills, and time they have. Whether they are divorced or never married in the first place, I don't think it's useful to equate their parenting to that of a married lesbian couple who have had the luxury of planning their family structure, simply because a man is not present in either case.
Posted by: DaveL | May 9, 2008 7:38 AM
Ed Wrote:
Ed, I still respectfully disagree. In a very real sense, the law did not have any certain meaning until it was interpreted by the judges.There are two ways of looking at judges work: One is to say they are revealing the meaning of the law, which assumes there is a real objective, inherent meaning to it prior to the judges' decisions. Constitutional fundamentalists, originalists, textualists, and many average citizens believe this (Scalia, obviously, is one who does). Others, such as now somewhat old-fashioned legal realists, believe there is no meaning until the judges give it meaning. I'm closer to the legal realists, except I would phrase things probabilistically--there is no true inherent meaning to legislation (or constitutions), but the range of possible judge-determined meanings is probabilistic--roughly speaking, there's probably a standard distribution (bell-shaped curve) of possible interpretation, with the ones under the peak of the bell being most likely, but nto certain.
I will recant a bit, and say the lawyer certtainly should have known this interpretation was a real possibility, but keep in mind that a lawyers job is to (a) advocate for his/her clients, and (b) make arguments about what the judges ought to say the law means. So I still wouldn't say the lawyer lied, because he/she couldn't have known with certainty that it would be interpreted this way (although they certainly might have been toe-walking on the gray line between truth and falseness).
Posted by: James Hanley | May 9, 2008 7:41 AM
Abby stated:
"Trust me, there are a great many families that would be improved by the removal of the father, my own for example. The man had a sadistic streak in him, which is why I became an emancipated minor and got the heck out of there as a teen. Having a good father in every family is simply not going to happen."
I am sorry about your Dad. This does not change my feelings about all this though. Children need a Father. I have scene even marked improvement with kids who parents were in jail when they have contact with the Father. Now if there is abuse or something else then things are different obviously.
DUwayne stated:
"But what little evidence I have seen thus far indicates that the sex of those parents is not likely that important of a factor. Though I will admit that this may partly be due to overcompensation on the part of gay parents. Give it a few generations of openly gay parents raising kids and that may change some"
I know this is not scientific proof but when a female teacher is sitting there screaming at a kid and he will not move and I come over and say move it and he does that shows me that at certain ages kids respond better to a male. I am not against Moms by the way. Single Mom's are my heroes. Tough issue that I will continue to think on. I think someone can be "pro family" and not anti-homosexual for good reasons. That is all I am trying to point out.
Azkyorth,
I am not sure what you were asking but my experience in the courts and with a church and both allowing my paranoid ex wife to erase my whole family out of my child's life has colored my thoughts. Also, my getting fed up with 80,000 dollars being spent against a 21 year old kid to decide whether the kid stays a few extra hours and all the appeals, delays, and tactics does cloud my understanding. I said fuck it and just gave her what she wanted: Me out of his life. I was wrong to quit.
But I am also speaking from experience as a teacher, mentor, and at times a preacher. I have seen it all and dealt with Fatherless kids in many societies. Big problem.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 9, 2008 8:09 AM
But I am also speaking from experience as a teacher, mentor, and at times a preacher. I have seen it all and dealt with Fatherless kids in many societies. Big problem.
How many of these Fatherless kids were in two-parent homes? If the answer is few to none, then how can you differentiate between the effects of a father and the effects of a two-parent home?
The answer, of course, is you can't. Which leaves you relying upon sexist assumptions to extrapolate the behavior of a two-parent lesbian family from a single mother family. Perhaps if there were evidence that single father families fared better than single mother families, you could argue that a parent with testicles is essential--but there is no such evidence.
Usually I find you pretty reasonable, KoI, but this thread definitely has you coming off in a bad light. I have also dealt with black (and white) teen males, and how they respond to their mothers has everything to do with how they were raised and what kind of parent their mother is. I have seen many teen males who respect their single mothers because their mother is consistent in her parenting. I have also seen many teen males completely disrespect their father because their father is not consistent in the application of punishments for disobedience. The quality of parenting has a hell of a lot more to do with gaining a kid's respect than the presence or absence of testicles.
Posted by: Shygetz | May 9, 2008 8:52 AM
If there's any question remaining as to whether the CPM lied to the public, I think the amicus brief they filed should settle any doubt:
I found enough in that and a few other sources to tell me that these bigoted bastards knew exactly what they were doing.
Posted by: Dana Hunter | May 9, 2008 9:24 AM
@James Hanley
You appear to be missing the fact that CPM appeared before the Court arguing for the majority interpretation of the amendment - see the dissent:
Do you really believe that they genuinaly believed what they said before the amendment was adopted, and only afterwards had an epiphany and suddenly realised that the clear meaning was actually contrary to their prior representations? If so, I have a bridge here for you...
Posted by: Robin Levett | May 9, 2008 9:54 AM
KoI, I think you missed my point. You can want every family to have a father 'til the cows come home. But for a variety of reasons that's not an option for many families. What I'm really missing from you statements is an explanation of how banning same-sex marriage does anything to promote positive paternal involvement. I don't see the connection. What I do see is a multitude of same-sex families struggling without the benefits marriage provides.
I'm pro-family, which is why I'm in favor of same-sex marriage.
You're right that this is not scientific proof. What you've shown here is that the kid responded differently to you than to her. Perhaps the child was in a power struggle with that teacher and any third party would have had the same effect. Or perhaps the way your actions contrasted with other teacher's made the difference, an unintentional good cop/bad cop effect. Any number of alternate explanations exist. So even apart from the fact that anecdotes aren't proofs, your story doesn't even demonstrate your conclusion that gender was a factor.
Perhaps children do respond differently to men and women in a general way. I've seen some developmental psychology studies that would support that. But if that's true it's an indication that men and women may need to use different strategies, not that one gender or the other can't be successful.
Like you I support the idea that having a positive role model for both genders is a benefit to a child. I support many programs aimed at encouraging that end. But it's not always possible and as far as I can see it's an entirely different issue from same-sex marriage.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 9, 2008 10:36 AM
Dana and Robin,
As I was taking a walk this morning, I suddenly wondered if the CPM had filed an amicus in the case, because--while I stand by my point as accurate in general--I knew that would have bearning on this case.
Thank you for answering, before I even got around to asking. I agree, the CPM people deliberately misled the citizens of Michigan. While they could not have known, a priori that the case would turn out as it did, they would certainly have known that if challenged they would file an amicus arguing the opposite of what they had previously said publicly.
Lying for Christ, indeed. And I bet it never occurs to them to ask forgiveness for that sin.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 9, 2008 2:02 PM
"I have seen many teen males who respect their single mothers because their mother is consistent in her parenting"
Where? This is not happening where I am at. I also stated that Mom's are important too. I would in fact say that a Mom can be more important at certain ages than Dad. I am glad my son lived with Mom when he was young. It is when they hit a certain age the boys need a man around.
As I thought about it, to be consistent I would need to say that I would be opposed to the wisdom of two Dad families. Legally I have no problem with it and I think it could be a violation of rights in many cases for the government to get involved. But also, with adoption we have to really think about all this and more that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I think there needs to be a standard for sure. Just because I would not use government to prohibit it does not mean I personally think it is a good idea.
As far as race, I teach a diverse school with many races and religions. The problems are more pronounced in the black communities that tend to be lower income communities. I teach a large number of upper middle class blacks and they almost all have two parents. My experience seems to draw certain correlations. I do not knowingly have gay parents. So in that my knowledge is limited by I think my concerns are legitimate.
Abby I am not for banning gay marriage. Read my earlier comment. Children came up in the post that is why I brought it up. As far as the kids who move when they hear the male voice this is a fact and not isolated. It happens almost everytime. I have seen it literally thousands of times with all kinds of variants as far as details. It is undeniable.
Is anyone hear denying the importance of having a Mom or Dad for a child? If not then how to we support same sex couples with children? If I am wrong I will listen but I am not seeing it and it has nothing to do with being a bigot or whatever. Again, there is a legal right and then what is best.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 9, 2008 2:14 PM
Why, if you're unable to separate the variable of "presence of 2nd parent" from "presence of a father"?
What is undeniable? That it's an immutable fact of nature? That women cannot have the same effect? That all men are capable of producing this effect? That it is not a skill that can be learned?
I myself have many experiences that suggest otherwise, and they're just as valid as yours.
Here I am. Children have needs that must be met, and discipline is one of them. The "traditional family" divides responsibility for these needs in a certain way, according to gender. That hardly means it's the only way it can be done. I might suggest Doug Muder's article on the different models for family used by liberals and conservatives. To use the jargon of the article, you are trying to equate an intact "Negotiated commitment" family with a broken "Inherited Obligation" family because they both lack an adult male. It's like noting that cars and snowmobiles are both vehicles, so since a car cannot function without wheels and a snowmobile has none, the latter must be nonfunctional. It's deeply illogical.
Posted by: DaveL | May 9, 2008 2:32 PM
The minute you let the tiger into your home, it bares its claws. This situation kinda puts the lie to the "everything but" civil union laws righties have been pushing all over the place, don't it?
Seeing as the CPM's lies are so glaring and obvious, AND were made in front of duly appointed councils which I assume were appointed by the state legislature (and to the state legislature themselves, unless I read your post wrong), wouldn't there be a very strong perjury case here?
Posted by: Julian | May 9, 2008 3:10 PM
I got that you weren't personally against same-sex marriage. It was more this statement, where you appear to be speaking for some moderate Christians that I was addressing. I took your use of "pro-family" to mean "against same-sex marriage" as it's often used that way. Sorry if that was a poor assumption. I was trying to understand how the "some Christians" you refer to could be truly for families and against same-sex marriage.
If you're simply trying to understand how same-sex couples are able to raise well-adjusted children, here's an article from WebMD you may find interesting. I also dug up this policy statement on the subject from the American Psychological Association. It includes a list of research papers you can follow-up on if you'd like more info.
They both show that same-sex couples do just as well as hetero couples at raising children. To understand how that's possible I'd suggest looking for a same-sex parenting support forum and reading what the parents themselves have to say. See what issues they face and how they handled them. Who knows, you may even find something relevant to your own situation with your son. :)
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 9, 2008 3:13 PM
Abby,
It is the same problem with other issues: For every study there is another one to refute it. Much of the time it seems to me that it depends on who paid for the study. I was told years ago that there was a study that showed that the best amount of sugar for a sports drink. It just happened to be exactly the amount in Gatorade. I wonder who paid for the study.
I did notice that the phrase, "more tolerant of differences" was repeated over and over again. That can be a good thing but not always depending on what tolerant means. Some from the gay community that I have met seem to push tolerance as agreeing that it is normal and good. I think tolerance is more when you disagree and say hey to each his own. The first seems to use intolerance to fight intolerance. It is hypocrisy and obvious. I do not think most do it but enough that it scares people that they will be bullied into going against their conscience and go the other way and say the hell with it all.
For a gay person to want the woman in Ed's other post from Positive Liberty suspended is the worst kind of intolerance imaginable. It states that I will silence anyone who disagrees with me in the name of promoting my rights.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 11, 2008 2:20 PM