Same-sex marriage push paves way for future
(Last updated: 06/15/09 7:06pm)In the wake of another Michigan Pride Festival, a chance to celebrate and educate people about Michigan’s gay population, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that some have begun talking about overturning the ban on same-sex marriages voters passed in the state in 2004.
One state lawmaker has moved beyond simple talk and taken action. Rep. Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, has proposed a new amendment that would remove the current language in the state constitution specifying marriage as a union between one man and one woman and replace it with language supporting the right for gays and lesbians to wed.
The fight for same-sex marriage has seen many victories lately, as states such as New Hampshire and Iowa have legalized it after suffering heavy losses earlier this century when multiple states passed statutes or constitutional amendments banning it.
For this board, the question of whether to legalize same-sex marriage is an easy one. Not allowing gays or lesbians to marry infringes on their rights and deprives them of the legal protections that they rightly deserve.
Multiple states have legalized it at this point and society has not crumbled. Giving gays and lesbians the right to marry does not make heterosexual marriage mean any less.
It also has not opened up the door to legalize such far-out concepts as beastiality in those states that have legalized the institution.
Even taking the idea of civil rights out of the equation, legalizing it would create an economic boom in a state that desperately needs it. Legalizing same-sex marriages likely would make the state a much more welcoming option for gays and lesbians, not to mention the money that would be spent on ceremonies and receptions.
Considering that we live in a nation in which the divorce rate is about 50 percent, it’s surprising that the same people who trumpet the importance of strong families would deny some the right to create their own.
It must be admitted that little probably will come from this effort. The amendment faces an uphill climb, requiring two-thirds majorities of both the state House and Senate before even reaching the voters.
Even if it does reach the voters, it’s unlikely it would pass. Although attitudes might have somewhat changed since the vote to ban same-sex marriage in Michigan, the measure passed fairly easily, with 58 percent of voters approving the measure.
That doesn’t mean the push is foolish or pointless.
The fight for gay rights probably will be a long one with multiple setbacks. However, if each new push can change just a few more people’s minds, eventually enough of the state can be convinced, finally bringing about the victory so many have fought so hard for.
Of course, if the victory comes earlier than people expected, so much the better.
Until then, we just have to keep striving for what’s right.
Originally Published: 06/15/09 7:06pm














Mike
06/15/09 8:30pmI threw up after reading this.
YOU LOST
06/16/09 8:20amTraditional marriage won. Get over it.
ELTON JOHN: CIVIL UNIONS WORK!
Tom W
06/16/09 9:39amSNews Board: Language is important, especially in a legal discussion. a same sex marriage ban doesn’t infringe on anybody’s rights—they never had the rights to begin with. What it does do, is deny same-sex couples equal protection of the laws.
YOU LOST: yeah, civil unions, separate but equal institutions right? oh wait, that principle was rejected 55 years ago…
Bleed Green
06/16/09 4:29pm“YOU LOST,” as it turns out, Elton John does not speak for the entire GLBT community. Civil unions aren’t equal to “traditional marriages,” so they’re not good enough. That’s all there is to it.
Sparty
06/17/09 9:26amDid I miss the editorial about how the anti-big government spending push paved the way for the future after the tea parties?
58% STRONG
06/22/09 2:22amSee, this is why Michigan is heading toward a depression. Because idiots like this keep the same, tired old ideas without any education behind them, and they keep digging themselves further into their hole.
By the way, let everyone have equal rights, but don’t call Gay Civil Unions “marriage”, since it clearly is not by definition. And yeah, that works, ask California.