You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 4:10 p.m.

Ann Arbor woman proposes to girlfriend after Supreme Court's same-sex marriage rulings

By Amy Biolchini


Jackie Simpson with her proposal to her partner, Jeanine Bessette, this week following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act.

Courtesy of Jackie Simpson

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings Wednesday on two major same-sex marriage cases, an Ann Arbor woman decided it was time to pop the question to her partner, according to media reports.

Jackie Simpson, the director of the University of Michigan's Spectrum Center, proposed to her girlfriend, Jeanine Bessette, this week with a public message written in rose petals.

The couple plans to go to a state that allows same-sex marriage in order to tie the knot next year, Simpson told the Ann Arbor Journal.

Simpson told this week that she felt the high court's Wednesday rulings were a huge step forward for same-sex marriage.

Amy Biolchini covers Washtenaw County, health and environmental issues for Reach her at (734) 623-2552, or on Twitter.



Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.

Heartfelt congratulations to Jackie and Jeanine, may you have all the happiness in the world! Gay or straight, love is GREAT!!!!

Not from around here

Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:30 a.m.

Great to see Ann Arbors excuse for a newspaper publishing both sides of this issue...I'm sure it's somewhere in the pile of one-sided drivel.


Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 5:14 p.m.

Just because there might be two sides to the issue does not mean they are equally credible. Those against same sex marriage have no rational basis for that belief and are just bitter reactionaries. Those who wish to deprive rights to others only on the irrational bases of hatred and in some cases religious belief are irrelevant and not worthy of any spotlight. They're clearly in the wrong.


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:21 a.m.

clownfish, notice my reply was to urban sombrero who proposed what s/he thought to be a Biblical view of marriage. i merely corrected his/ her assertion by noting the difference between Biblical practice and Biblical definition, as reiterated by Jesus. (The difference IS worth noting because it's quite a significant difference.) That you refute the authenticity of said Scripture is irrelevant. US admitted Scripture into the argument and I offered a rebuttal using the same Scripture s/he admitted.


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:24 a.m.

this reply was positioned improperly. my intent was to post it in a thread begun by Don way up at the top of the page.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 3:41 p.m.

That was totally my daughters idea - she talked Jackie into it because she knew she really wanted to do it - borrowed Jackie's credit card and bought the roses, did the layout of them in front of the fountain and brought Jackie down for the photo! Ariana good job!!! Jackie... CONGRATULATIONS!!!


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.

@ mpope: I think you're starting to get the idea when you preface a couple-thousand-year-old quote by saying, "and perhaps of little consequence..." Yep. What somebody said about this two thousand years ago IS of little consequence!

Not from around here

Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : noon

I think it interesting that allows commentors to make bigoted, hateful attacks on christians and there beliefs that they would never allowed against other beliefs. Maybe they should just come out and state that they will allow bigoted attacks on christians? Put it out in the open?


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:57 p.m.

@hmsp: You are straying off-topic and making this an argument about religion and this hurts the cause you are trying to promote. Curt posts can come across poorly and small-minded. In this instance in particular, considering the teachings of Jesus have been passed down over two millenia and spawned billions of followers, what "somebody" said is actually important. And to a lot of people. You are obviously entitled to your own opinion and beliefs, but you err in attempting to discredit all wisdom, knowledge, philosophy and beliefs simply because of when they were uttered or who uttered them.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 12:43 p.m.

Everyone deserves to be happy.


Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 2:41 p.m.

Bubba, very simply put but it cuts cleanly through the rhetoric! I couldn't have said it better!


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 11:54 a.m.

Let me get this straight. The Supreme Cour's ruling did not alter the law in states where same sex marriage is yet to be legal. Let me also remind everyone the the voters, yes the voters put it in the constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. Unless the Supreme Court directly overturns the law in this state, nothing has changed, nor should it.

Jessica Webster

Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 7:15 p.m.

They are getting married in a state where it is legal.


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:25 p.m.

Not From, I agree with you that the pattern of undermining the voice of the people is similar, but I would argue in goodwill that marriage--its definition, practice and impact-- is a much more foundational issue than marijuana use-- be it medical, legal or illegal.

Not from around here

Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:05 p.m.

I think this will fall along the lines of Medical dope. The law was clear enough to most but a certain groupsaw an opening to go against will of the people to meet their own desires. Ergo the plethera of proposals.


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1:49 a.m.

correct. but marriage proposals abound. hasty much?


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 4:33 a.m.

@ mpope, re my "Bronze Age" comments: Sure, some of the things those practically-prehistoric guys had to say were right on: * Judge not, lest Ye be judged. * Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. * Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ******** But those ideas were not new, people had been saying that stuff long before we had anything called "Christianity," (a religion that did not exist until long after Jesus's death). And the above "Christian" quotes instruct a tolerant outlook on life, not an angry and vengeful one.

Not from around here

Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:07 p.m.

Here we go again. It's OK in the liberal mind to be hateful and Bigoted, as long its against christians., could you please put that new ruling in your commenting comments-just so were clear.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 5:44 a.m.

hsmp, your preference for a part-time-OK- Jesus is a common one. regardless of how you like your Jesus quotes, my point still stands-- his clear teaching on marriage is inconsistent with Dirty Mouth's view of the thing-- a fact I wanted to point out, considering the avatar chosen was, in fact, Jesus. additionally (and perhaps of little consequence, as you've already stated you pick and choose your Jesus-isms) he also said: * Go and sin no more. (this directly after the famous 'first stone' remark) and * Stop sinning lest something worse may happen to you. these and and many other quotes demonstrate Jesus was intolerant of sin-- NOT just the sin of condemnation/ judgment of persons. a few questions: to what are you ascribing the charges "angry and vengeful"? why do you top post replies instead of posting replies in the thread?


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:54 a.m.

@ mpope, re your reply to DirtyMouth: Thanks for telling us what somebody thought about this back in the Bronze Age.


Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 6:04 p.m.

clownfish, how about you engage any number of my replies to you, instead of this (is it clowinsh or fishy) tactic of merely tossing out yet another objection? engage, why dontcha.


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:44 p.m.

Pope, can you show me where in the constitution it says The State "has a responsibility to preserve the foundational structure of society, which is marriage"? Is there any law that says this? Upon what do you base this belief? Does this mean you would outlaw divorce? Should people be required to marry?


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1:40 a.m.

clownfish, your list of bad-bible-haircuts-that-leadeth-unto-death is well practiced, but a tired old saw. you're badly versed in the difference (vast) between societal disciplines and unchanging law. theocracy, you warn. scary words, indeed. marriage is the only social institution established to protect children. notice how, directly correlative to the collapse of (the US state of) marriage is the instability of the lives of children. there are oceans of research to support and little to refute this. tangentially, (but I'll bite) you'd like to see the 'enshrinement' of health care and feeding for elderly and poor? some folks are not waiting for the 'Law" to do something or anything about that. (or better yet, not waiting for more broken socialist initiatives to muck things up even more worser.) some folks ARE feeding the sick, and giving health care to the needy. in fact, some folks have established soup kitchens and food closets in the disadvantaged neighborhoods of every major city in the US and many many more locations. some folks are giving hospital beds to one in six seniors and disabled patients and more than one in every eight low-income patients. some folks are providing 16% of medicare and 14% of medicaid hospital beds. some folks are the largest private provider of care to AIDS and HIV patients in the world. (and they take a daily slugging being called "homophobic". go figure.) some folks arent waiting for government enactment or 'enshrinement'. some folks are just doing it. maybe you'd like some names and numbers? maybe you'd like to get involved?


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.

I eagerly await the enshrining into Law the care, feeding and health care for the poor, infirmed and elderly. Jesus, according to people that wrote about him well after his death, spoke quite a bit more frequently about those things than he did marriage. We could enshrine into law not working on The Sabbath, the keeping of slaves (Luke says "The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows."), a ban on shrimp, shaving, wearing mixed cloth, we should encourage Brother-in-law marriage, we should outlaw magic and Harry Potter, Apostasy, etc . After all The King of Kings did tell us "anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Or, we could choose to not live in a Theocracy.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 6:17 a.m.

1bit, thanks for a reasoned response. the state has a responsibility to preserve the foundational structure of society, which is marriage-- the union of man and woman "ordered" to the procreation and protection of children. ('order' does not necessarily mean 'accomplishment' of the outcome to which a thing is ordered. this is an important distinction. for instance, sterile heterosexual couples are still ordered to the procreation of children even if the outcome of procreation isnt accomplished. ) the state has most miserably aided heterosexual failure in this regard in many respects: no fault divorces conventional refusal to protect spouses in violent marriages the absolutely BRUTAL exploitation of children in custody battles carried out by so-called family courts etc. so, from every reasonable perspective, heterosexuals (with the help of the state) have done a nearly perfect evisceration of civil marriage already. BUT, and this is no small quibble-- regardless of how the heterosexual society has already mucked this up, the legal definition of marriage has STILL always been a man and a woman, which is "ordered" to the procreation and protection of children. despite the gross fact that the legal practice of marriage is such a wreck, the state does have a responsibly to uphold the legal definition of marriage (which still stands in many states) do i think homosexual couples should enjoy a whole host of legal and financial benefits? of course i do. any payer should be able to name his/ her beneficiaries on any policy they hold. estate taxes should be similar as in marriage etc. my thinking is geared toward this because i believe the state should be prevented from robbing all persons, any persons, regardless of their family/ marriage status and sexual orientation. but the deal breaker for me is children. adults do not have a "right" to a child. instead, a child has the right to live and to be born into a protected union of mother


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 4:22 a.m.

@mpope: I think we sometimes suffer from conflating "marriage" by the State with the "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony" of the Church. The State wishes to give or allow benefits to couples who have chosen each other irrespective of their sexual orientation. It is the State's prerogative as to how it would direct its money and benefits. This would seem to be a time where we 'give to Caeser what is Caeser's'. The teaching you quote speaks for itself but, personally, I am not great enough to cast the first stone.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 3:44 a.m.

hsmp, you've referred to the Bronze Age several times in these posts. Apparently you think you're making a cogent argument about the evolution of human thought and all that. but it's immaterial to my point: DirtyMouth has as an avatar, a picture of Jesus the Good Shepherd. i'm merely quoting that same Good Shepherd on the issue of marriage. i conclude Dirty Mouth's interpretation of marriage is inconsistent with Jesus' clear instruction on marriage.

Dirty Mouth

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:19 a.m.

Nothing is ever wrong with love! EVER! Congratulations to Jackie Simpson and Jeanine Bessette!


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 3:37 a.m.

1bit, with the help of my reading glasses, i did eventually see the light saber. i wondered if maybe DM was attesting to some sort of tek-gnosticism, which would communicate some level of respect for a world religion, its deeply beloved leader and the disciples thereof. however, when s/he claimed to be an atheist, i wondered if some religious bigotry with the intent of mockery was behind the meme. but i didn't want, and still don't want to ascribe bad (read hateful, bigoted, Christophobic motives) behind it. DM, you say you're an atheist. that doesnt necessarily make you a Christophobe, but, are you?


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1:10 a.m.

athiets or not, DM, your avitar is of Jesus. i thought it might interest you that you're using his picture while contradicting his words. maybe that's a little inconsistent, no?

Dirty Mouth

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 11:29 p.m.

I'm an atheists. :)


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 4:11 a.m.

So sexual love between a father and daughter, father and son, mother and not wrong??? Same sex "marriage" needs a new name. "Marriage " is for a man and a woman. I will never acknowledge same sex marriage.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:43 a.m.

DM, I see your profile picture is of the Good Shepherd. here's what he says about marriage: He said in reply, ;Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate. They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]? He said to them, " Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (matthew 19: 4-8.)

Real Life

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:17 a.m.

Regardless of the Supreme Court, their marriage is not a matter of public policy.

Dirty Mouth

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:22 a.m.

Politicians have taken a cultural issue and politicized it. Enough is enough.

Usual Suspect

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:08 a.m.

You people have an unhealthy obsession with this subject.


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 4:15 p.m.

And some people have an unhealthy obsession with hating gay people.

Usual Suspect

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 5:02 a.m.

Sure... five articles ago.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 3:16 a.m.

it's not unhealthy to want friends/family/fellow American citizens to have equal rights. In fact I think it's pretty weird that some people DON'T support that.

Dog Guy

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 12:19 a.m.

The director of the University of Michigan Spectrum Center has overtaken us teachers for taking work home and being married to the job.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 12:05 a.m.

@ chapmaja, re: "comes from a biblical definition..." "a biblical defined event called marriage." I never cease to be amazed at folks who stress that these "rules" date back to the Bronze Age, thousands of years before the Age of Reason. That's precisely the problem! That just underscores the fact that it is time to drop a lot of stuff that those largely clueless people dictated, like putting witches to death, and saying things like, "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." Now that we have decades of the best medical science telling us that being gay is not some sort of deviant "choice," but something in a person's nature, beyond their control, it's time to take a more enlightened view, and leave those Bronze Age teachings in the dust.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 11:31 p.m.

Imagine for a moment having the ability to transform your body into any living thing of equal mass. To be a synthetic changling made up of programable nanocells. You could be a big dog or cat. Male or female. Horse, or eagle or dolphin. And also be secure in your wealth such that any form you took owed no group allegience whilst still retaining your own thoughts inside whatever body you chose. You of course could live forever and sample many odd varieties over time. You would simply transform out the broken cells of your body for newer ones to survive. Now - how long do you think the sacred requirement of marriage between only one man and one woman would last for you - personally? Personally, I am old fashioned and would like to know my partner was originally my "mate" in every conceivable way simply for my sense of completeness. For others, though, I can see that this physical constraint of biblical marriage diversity is a but one choice of many fitting issues within this unfolding universe of advanced life forms. Perfection is relative to the beholder. All beings that began somehow will eventually end along with the universe that supports them so what does it matter? To whom? The universe creator?. Having said that. I think there has been an excessive amount of pandering to minority groups by politicians and courts lately to garner support for the synthetic governance which is absolutely abnormal and corrupted - ultimately a danger to all lifeforms as a result. Including Wall Streeters, blacks, hispanics, chinese, gays, Judeo-Christians, and even those like me, independent. Congratulations on the love part, though. That is about all that anyone outside of the crumbling pinnacle has left these days.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 11:04 p.m.

I stand by my belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This definition dates back while before the birth of this country. Now, with that said, I don't have a problem with homosexual couples having a civil union, and all the benefits and responsibilities that come with such a union. I just have a problem with homosexuals using a term which is not in the biblical definition of that term. Congrats to this couple and I wish they have the best future possible once the create their official union as a couple.


Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 2:09 p.m.

@ Kevin - straight people "own" the word marriage? You can't be serious, but I'm afraid with your outdated are serious. Very scary


Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 12:56 a.m.

It won't be long before the supreme beings decide you are using the wrong word. Marriage is ours and you need to get a new word! word!


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 1:07 a.m.

clowfish, i'd like to point out three things: 1. Rome collapsed. it's vast and perverse sexual practices may very well have been part of the reason the civilization crashed. 2. you and I both disagree with the opinion of the court re: Loving v Virginia. 3. American courts have been wrong about marriage before. I assert they stand on the precipice of being very wrong again.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 8:59 p.m.

Or we could go back to the tradition of Women being the property of the husband, this was common throughout the Founding of America, well into the 19th century. Or we could go with this Judges view of the world; "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 8:48 p.m.

So let us go back before the birth of this country: "traditional marriage": In ancient Rome, if you planned to run for office, you could increase your chances of winning by creating a political alliance through the marriage of your children. Parents arranged marriages to produce descendants to tend the ancestral spirits. Bride and groom must have reached puberty. Over time, examination to determine puberty gave way to standardization at age 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Eunuchs, who would never reach puberty, were not permitted to marry. There were three types of marriages in manum: Confarreatio Confarreatio was an elaborate religious ceremony, with ten witnesses, the flamen dialis (himself married confarreatio) and pontifex maximus in attendance. Only the children of parents married confarreatio were eligible. The grain far was baked into a special wedding cake (farreum) for the occasion; hence, the name confarreatio. Coemptio In coemptio, the wife carried a dowry into the marriage, but was ceremoniously bought by her husband in front of at least five witnesses. She and her possessions belonged to her husband. This was the type of marriage in which, according to Cicero, it is thought the wife declared ubi tu gaius, ego gaia, usually thought to mean "where you [are] Gaius, I [am] Gaia," although gaius and gaia need not be praenomina or nomina*. Usus After a year's cohabitation, the woman came under her husband's manum, unless she stayed away for three nights (trinoctium abesse). Since she wasn't living with her pater familias, and since she wasn't under the hand of her husband, she acquired some freedom.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 3:14 a.m.

there's this thing called separation of church and state. The bible should not be involved in any constitutional decisions. Plus marriage has been around since WAY before christianity. Nice try though.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 10:18 p.m.

Don and Jussayin', why does it bother you so much? It doesn't take any rights away from you. Don't you want these ladies to be happy? I've yet to hear a logical explanation from those who are against equal marriage rights as to why they think it's wrong. I'm sorry but I think it just hateful to want to deny others the same rights that you have.


Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:57 a.m.

clownfish, i'd like to point out that you're supporting intolerance, rudeness, and harsh judgment on the grounds that you deem the responses illogical and sky falling rhetoric. you're allowing your own intolerance and supporting lola's on the grounds of .... what you deem to be others' intolerance. this breach of consistency could easily be viewed as hypocrisy. as for reasons, please see my posts elsewhere on this thread. note: you haven't demonstrated any special powers as the arbiter of "logical" just yet. therefore, that you may dislike my reasons doesnt necessarily mean mine are illogical reasons. it just means you don't like them.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 8:44 p.m.

That is because there is no logical reason to deny this relationship. I have asked for the conservative reasoning several far no response . Lots of Sky is Falling rhetoric, some scripture, but no reason, based on conservative political theory. (less government intrusion into peoples lives, freedom to practice ones religion free from government interference, etc) I guess telling people that they are going to burn in Hell for Eternity is not hateful. I guess making people second class citizens is not hateful. Neither is grouping a large, diverse group into one easily defined stereotype ("the left").

Usual Suspect

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 3:17 p.m.

Acceptance does not include calling somebody hateful due to the fact they have an opinion that differs from yours. That's pure, 200-proof intolerance, and entirely predictable from the left.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 5:33 a.m.

I don't 'tolerate', I accept. Something neither of you can seem to do. Please put on your big-boy pants and tell me why you would deny these folks the same rights that you have. I believe I've already given you my logical reason for my point of view. All people deserve the same rights and the right to marry the person you love is one of those rights. By the way, mpope, it isn't a lifestyle anymore than your heterosexuality is one.

Usual Suspect

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:10 a.m.

That's what they do, mpope. And the funny thing is they're supposedly the people fol tolerance.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 1:18 a.m.

lola, you lept from "why bother?" to "it's just hateful" in three sentences, without offering any "logical explanation" for your own judgment. 'just sayin' has a viewpoint that homosexual lifestyle is wrong. s/he hasn't written a word about the value, dignity, or worth of any persons involved-- only that the lifestyle is "totally wrong." and you retort "hateful." perhaps your own condemnation of 'just sayin' is what's hateful.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 9:56 p.m.

And isn't it great, jussaying', that you can still believe what you believe? And that nobody can force you or your place of worship--if you have one--to perform same sex weddings? Yesterday's SCOTUS decision will stand but you don't have to change your beliefs (unless you want to). I can relate to where you're coming from though. There was a time when the Constitution counted people like me as three-fifths of a person. We didn't care what the law said, we knew that we were each 100% a person (tax or no tax) :-)

Not from around here

Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:25 a.m.

Well, for now. Pulling tax-exept status will be next. Whave all seen that the democrats are willing to use govermental agencies, like the IRS, to attack people who disagreement. Makes you wonder why the govermental agencies are buying up all the ammo in the country.

Ed Kimball

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.

@chapmaja: All this fuss over a WORD????


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 3:13 a.m.

hey chapmaja, newsflash--marriage has been around since WAY before the "biblical definition" you bring up.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 11:15 p.m.

Actually, this may be an issue in the future. It would not be that far a step for the government to basically force religious institutions to perform homosexual marriages. The reason. The court has basically said that denying rights to a homosexual couple is discrimination against said couple. Tax exempt organizations can't discriminate against a person based on a multitude of factors. Sexual orientation is rapidly becoming one of those factors. If a tax exempt organization discriminates they face losing that tax exempt status. As I have said before. I am all for homosexual individuals having a legally define union with all rights and responsibilities of said unions. I have a problem with taking a term that pre-dates the formation of this country by well over 1000 years and comes from a biblical definition and one group of 9 people can just rewrite 1000's of years of history. That is wrong when an equal alternative is available, civil unions. I also have a problem comparing this to slavery. Slaves were discriminated against by not allowing them the right to live a normal and free life. Counting them as 3/5th of a person was not fair to them because they were a hole person. The 3/5th compromise itself had nothing to do with how a person was treated however. It had to do with how states were granted power in the nations capital, that's it. Slavery was the bigger issue, and since that actually did discriminate against people, it should have been outlawed. There is a big difference between treating a person differently and allowing or not allowing a single word to describe a relationship. The simple thing is homosexuals should be allowed the same exact rights as everyone else, except they should not be allowed to be involved in a biblical defined event called marriage. They should be allowed to have their own unions with all the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual married couple, just not use the term.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 9:22 p.m.

Don't care what the courts say, don't care what the people who pretend like this lifestyle is OK say, I "ll always view this as being totally wrong!


Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.

Climate change is a myth! Legitimate rape anyone?

Not from around here

Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 12:17 p.m.

Well for now, you can still believe what you want. But pretty some that will probably change. If you don't tow the line, you will risk lossing your tax exempt status, like churches in California soon will and the boy scouts are, probably be harrassed by the goverment agencies, like the IRS is doing to Conservative groups now, and may end up facing long term imprisonment without proof of guilt, like the Hutaree. But for the immediate future, you still have that right. Got to love those (in)tolerant and (un)loving Democrats.

Not from around here

Sun, Jun 30, 2013 : 2:22 a.m.

If the majority disagree with you, call them Haters and leverege the courts to impose your beliefs on them-It's the democratic way


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 12:27 p.m.

You are entitled to your opinion, but not to having your opinion enshrined in law. You are also entitled to publicly express your opinion. Thank you for doing so without namecalling or threats.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 3:12 a.m.

Mike--I use CO2 to euthanize mice. It is definitely poisonous in certain concentrations.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 1:26 a.m.

You are right jussayin, America loses big time.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 1:24 a.m.

This is very wrong, very queer - NOT RIGHT !


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 10:52 p.m.

CO2 *IS* poisonous even though I exhale it! "In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour"

Urban Sombrero

Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 10:41 p.m.

Don't like gay marriage? DON'T GET GAY MARRIED. It's as simple as that.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 9:52 p.m.

KMHall - Some people believe in global warming, others believe CO2 is poisonous even thought they exhale it, others believe that a 5 month old fetus is OK to abort, others believe that 16 trillion in debt and increasing spending is a good idea too, others believe the government should monitor, protect, and control every aspect of our lives; what's your point?


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 9:26 p.m.

Some still maintain that the world is flat.

Urban Sombrero

Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 9:14 p.m.

Yay! Congrats!


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 9:13 p.m.

Congrats to the 2 ladies. Same sex marriage should not matter as long as the 2 people involved love each other. The irony in all of this is that in some cases, same sex marriages will be exposed to the same headaches that heterosexual couples have lived with for 200 years when a relationship does not work out. Among them: - child support - custody issues - alimony - financial ruin for both if one of the two loses a job, etc.. There are other issues, but I thought I would start with these. An old saying comes to mind, "the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence".:) I wish the ladies all the luck in the world.

James Toy

Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 8:56 p.m.

Mazeltov and hugs!!!


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 8:46 p.m.

How is someone requesting, someone else to do something, against the constitution of this state celebrated by Marriage is between one man and one woman. The people of this state voted on it. A judge should not be able to overrule the voters of our state!


Mon, Jul 1, 2013 : 12:53 a.m.

Well, it's really time we start differentiating between "Christian" marriage and marriage as a legal term. Legally the rules are becoming equal, slowly but surely. The people can't vote against the constitution. The supreme beings will make it so as soon as they have a case they can leverage, I'd love to see this Ann Arbor couple sue the fed gov and be that case!! So Don, have at any religious definition you want but don't forget to separate church and state.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 8:38 p.m.

-Allegedly- reiterated by Jesus, written down long after his death, by people that thought the Earth was the center of the Universe and that bats are birds.

Mr. Ed

Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 2:08 a.m.

Don your a voice of reason.


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 1:37 a.m.

Urban Sombrero, you've mistaken biblical definition of marriage with practices described therein. here is the biblical definition of marriage, reiterated by Jesus: He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (matthew 19: 4-8.) (by the way, US, in almost every instance, the outcome of Biblical polygamy was less than satisfactory.)


Sat, Jun 29, 2013 : 1:23 a.m.

No David, America loses BIG TIME !

Urban Sombrero

Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.

"Marriage is between one man and one woman" What are you basing that on? The Bible? Because, they Bible defines marriage SEVERAL different ways: Man and wife; Man +WiveS + concubines; Man + Wife + Wive's slaves; Man + several Wives; etc. etc. etc. Or, perhaps, you're defining it based on procreation? IE, marriage should be between a man and the woman solely for the purpose of bearing children? Well then, what about infertile couples? What about people who actively choose not to have kids? What about people like my (second) husband and I----who have had kids (with our first spouses) and are now "fixed", so we can't procreate? What about marriage between people past childbearing years? Should all those be invalid? How about this: If it doesn't actively affect you, you just let it be? It's as simple as that. I'm not trying to be snotty, but I just don't understand why people, who really have no horse in this race, seem so virulently against it. Again, if it's religious objections, well......not everyone in this country is of your religion. That, my friend, is the absolute beauty of America. We're a melting pot! There are a lot of different lifestyles/religions/beliefs/etc. That's what makes this country amazing.

David Cahill

Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 11:18 p.m.

Too bad, "Don". You lose. Get over it.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 10:33 p.m.

Freedom and equality trumps democracy. It wasn't that long ago that the Supreme Court had to strike down miscegenation laws.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 10:04 p.m.

Overruling voters is a constitutionally defined job of judges.


Fri, Jun 28, 2013 : 8:29 p.m.

Congratulations to Jackie and Jeanine!