LANSING, MI — Michigan’s gay marriage ban remains in place after a federal court ruling on Thursday, and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette both made clear they will continue to defend it.

“When I became governor, I took an oath to support and defend our state constitution, without exceptions,” Snyder said in a statement, referencing the 2004 voter-approved amendment that defined marriage as between one woman and one man.

“My obligation to carry out that oath is not a matter of personal preference. As I have said throughout this process, I will respect the court’s decision as it examines the legality of same-sex marriage.”

Snyder has consistently declined to take a stance on the underlying issue — whether the same-sex marriage ban is good public policy — which has led to criticism from gay rights supporters.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its ruling that applied to Michigan and three other states, said courts should not be the final arbiter on gay marriage.

“Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way,” Judges Jeffrey Sutton and Deborah L. Cook wrote in the majority opinion

The ruling overturned a lower court decision that had temporarily invalidated Michigan’s gay marriage ban on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Circuit Court Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, in her dissent, wrote that the her colleagues failed to address the "real issue" in the case — whether gay marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution — by focusing on who should make the decision.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index....says_defen.html
*******************

Seems that the "standing" of the court to make these moral choices is a legitimate question. On what basis does any court decide such a moral issue?
If it is done simply on the basis of equality then the man should have equal rights to marry two women, one doag, three sheep. Seems the courst need to defer to the culture on such issues. The people should decide not 3 or 4 robed citizens.