Mich. defends its defense of gay-marriage ban

A spokeswoman for Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said his office is performing its duty by defending the state's ban on gay marriage.
AP Wire
Feb 26, 2014

A trial challenging the ban began Tuesday in Detroit federal court. In Washington, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told state attorneys they're not obligated to defend laws that discriminate against people based on sexual orientation.

Holder gave a speech Tuesday and cited his own experience in refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Voters added Michigan's gay-marriage ban to the state constitution in 2004. Schuette spokeswoman Joy Yearout says his office will continue to "aggressively defend" it.

Schuette is a Republican. Democratic attorneys general in six states have declined to defend same-sex marriage bans that have been challenged by gay couples.



The Attorney General does not believe in equal rights. This is America we should not let this happen. Showing preference to some citizens is Un-American.

deuce liti

"Showing preference to some citizens is Un-American."

It's actually the most American thing in the world. From the systematic genocide of american indians to the enslavement of the africans to the 1%, America has always shown preference to some over others.

To think this worthless country is great is foolish and naïve.

Thank God I live in a country where I can say that!


We do it all the time, economically, by race...Let them marry, I just wish they’d stop all the noise about it being a "right" and “normal", it's not a right, rights only come from God, and it's not normal behavior and is sin, let the state officials do what they wish, we will not have to answer for them unless we have supported them in their efforts to sin against God.


Leviticus 25:23
“The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.

What's your address as I'd like to move in this afternoon please.

Right's are afforded to you by your government. For example, property rights. Not allowing people to marry (which by the way is a right afforded to you by your government) is a human rights violation.

This is not a religious question, as religion has no place in government. Laws created to govern our rights are created by man, to rule man, god had and should have nothing to do with them.


The People have spoken ! So tired of the left trying to thwart the will of the people. If they don't like the outcome or the will of the people well then lets try suing to get that overturned and at the same time impose what we feel should be the law because we can't get it done with a vote. Bunch of lawless thugs, has nothing to do with a 'right' or 'discrimination'. WE THE PEOPLE have spoken loud and clear, take your equal rights crap and your agenda and shove it.


LIAMD: Spoken like a true republican. Down with equal rights. This is the battle we fight. If Republicans have their way we will return to slavery and witch hunts. What a shame on our great country. Oh by the way the people spoke when WE elected President Obama.


The constitution- state or federal- should be there to protect the rights of the people not deprive them. As for it being voted in, just because the majority doesn't like it we still can't take a minority of the populations rights away. If the majority voted to ban the private ownership of firearms should that be put in the constitution? That seed is being planted and when it grows to reality they will be able to point back to this as an example of why the majority should dictate who gets to keep what rights. Slippery slope....


A federal judge in San Antonio ruled Wednesday that Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutionally deprives some citizens of due process and equal protection under the law by stigmatizing their relationships and treating them differently from opposite-sex couples. We the people have spoken.


Go ahead, convince yourselves that this immoral and not normal behavior is good and MUST BE DEFENDED AS A 'right'. The jokes on you in the end..good luck ! Rom 1:24-26


And adulterers should be able to participate in deciding what behavior is immoral? I would guess you don't pass this harsh judgment on those of your friends who are divorced, have cheated on their spouse, or had sex outside of marriage. No, you sit next to them in church and pretend their behavior is somehow less offensive than homosexual acts. The law has no place in passing moral judgement on anyone and if you choose to do so, please look at the other sins taking place around you and question why these are not as objectionable.

Anytime you have to use religion to justify a law you have lost the argument period. Just as I would objext to Sharia Law being imposed, I am not willing to let a Christian version take it's place.


the way this country is going were all gonna get it in the end, if ya know what I mean . . .


Let everyone have their marriage. A true marriage is between 2 people and their God, who cares what a government calks it. And Just as Leviticus says that a man should not lie with a man, it also says in Matthew that marrying a divorced woman is committing adultery, also a sin. For those people quoting the Bible, I'm sure they also closely follow the Leviticus approved diet, do not touch their wife during her menstrual period, especially since Leviticus says she should be "away for her unclean time", spending time in her menstrual shack for the week. Do you ever get angry, look at someone in lust, refuse to lend anyone money, not sacrifice the fatted calf, eat hoofed animals or fish without scales, or even thought an untruth? Then you are just as big if a sinner as someone who claims they love someone of the same sex. "Let he without sin cast the first stone."

What ever happened to following the teachings of Jesus? Love one another, don't judge, and love thy God with all your heart.


I think you just convinced me divorce should be prohibited by the constitution as well.

Tri-cities realist

Speaking of casting the first stone, where is that SHOUTER? Hopefully getting his or her keyboard fixed.


And the Union between a women and a man, always, alway will be in my book !!!!


From my perspective, all this is missing the point. Holder,an alleged attorney, who has no authority over State Attorneys General, is urging them to violate their Oaths of Office and their obligations as attorneys to bring them down to the level of politicized law that he practices. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Gov...

But what difference does it really make if the citizens of a state have spoken against gay marriage, and the citizens elect and pay a state Attorney General to enforce the laws of the state and its citizens?

The racialist Eric Holder wants real lawyers to politicize their professional obligations like he has (pardon of Clinton financier Marc Rich http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime... http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/0...

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.