Who gets to decide the laws?

I found the Detroit Free Press page that has a live-blog of yesterday's same-sex marriage court proceedings. That means the writer, Jim Schaeffer, puts out a sentence or two at a time. His writing is mostly on pages 2 & 3 of this post. The rest is taken up by reader comments. Since I didn't take notes with me yesterday, this live-blog will allow me to share some of the arguments.

The defendant speaker was Kristin Heyse from Attorney General Bill Schuette's office. She complemented the lesbian couple (Rowse and DeBoer) on doing a wonderful job raising their kids. This isn't an attack on the gay community (and we're not buying that one). Her main points:

* Who gets to decide Michigan law? The people or this (federal) court? I add that it's an important question because the amendment was approved by voters by 59%. But while she talked about that I kept thinking the people should decide the law, unless they enact a law that contradicts the federal constitution. Then it is tyranny of the majority. (Of course, laws are also made by a legislature that crams it down our throats.) Heyse continued: If the people don't like the law, they can change it (we're working on it, dear).

* Michigan has never recognized same-sex marriage and there is no fundamental right to it.

* The optimal environment for raising kids is one man and one woman. I add: But an optimal environment doesn't mean we must exclude some pretty good ones, especially if they provide homes for kids who don't have one, which is what Rowse and DeBoer are doing.

Next up was Carol Stanyar for the plaintiffs. Her main points:

* Court precedent allows for review of laws that may be unconstitutional.

* If discrimination is not challenged our children would still be drinking from separate water fountains.

* Defendants are wrong that gay parents are not optimal parents. She listed many social science associations that back her up. This was where the judge challenged her.

Michael Pitt is the attorney for Lisa Brown, the clerk of Oakland County (where the plaintiffs live). He was the third one to speak. The clerk's duties are to ensure every person seeking a marriage license is treated equally. She can't do that now. That is why she asked to be a part of this case.