Tag: Standing

In the decision striking down Certain DOMA sections, the court implied much but fell short of 'legalizing' same sex couplings as 'marriage' nationwide.  They cannot, and even as twisted as the court has become, the 'Overton Window' of sorts is not yet aligned with the court bringing outright infringements upon the states. (though Roberts came close with O-Care) However, the court DID refuse to hear the case regarding prop 8 in California, a move that signals to activists nationwide that same-sex bans need only make it to the nearest capitulating federal judge.

That judge can then override the will of the people in a state, and force a perverse application of reality on that state's citizens. And the high court will look the other way.

Attorney General Bill Schuette sees the writing on the wall and has responded:

As you may know, the Michigan Constitution defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Article 1, Section 25). This was placed in the constitution after being passed by the voters with 58% of the vote. And this language still stands in Michigan, unaltered by the United States Supreme Court's rulings yesterday.

One of those rulings unfolded due to a very odd twist. In the California case, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case because of a lack of standing. The upshot is that the Supreme Court's ruling left undisturbed a lower court ruling that overturned California's ban on gay marriage.

This situation came about because the California Attorney General refused to defend the law, even though voters in California had approved a definition of marriage as one man and one woman. And so, because the state's attorney general refused to defend the law, the law fell.

That will not happen in Michigan. My pledge to you as your Attorney General is that I will defend Michigan's Constitution and the vote of the people. That is the oath I took on the day I was sworn in, and it's an oath I uphold every day.

And as an aside? The Supreme Court Of The United States can take their "standing" rule and shove it where the appendix begins.

It matters only if it matters to you.

At least that is the way some cases have been ended.  If you have no compelling interest, why might you bring a suit?  What does the ACLU do when it wants to prove a point? It shops out for a plaintiff, the "victim" of some particular law or abrogation of what the ACLU might perceive to be rights, either real or imagined.