Gay marriage bans in four states upheld, Supreme Court review likely

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 2008
64,877
5,110
Washington state
The same-sex marriage movement lost its first major case in a federal appeals court Thursday after a lengthy string of victories, creating a split among the nation's circuit courts that virtually guarantees Supreme Court review.
The 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed district court rulings that had struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.


Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of the Republican Party's most esteemed legal thinkers and writers, issued the 42-page decision precisely three months after hearing oral arguments in the cases, with fellow GOP nominee Deborah Cook concurring. He delivered a rare defeat for proponents of same-sex marriage, who had won nearly all the cases decided from Florida to Alaska since the Supreme Court ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013.
Sutton argued that appellate judges' hands are tied by a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling from 1972, which "upheld the right of the people of a state to define marriage as they see it." Last year's high court decision requiring the federal government to recognize legal same-sex marriages does not negate the earlier ruling as it applies to states where gay marriage is not legal, he said. The same reasoning was used by a federal district court judge in Puerto Rico last month.
"When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers," Sutton said. "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." Gay marriage bans in four states upheld, Supreme Court review likely

Finally got a Republican judge concerning marriage laws. Judge Jefferey Sutton upheld marriage bans based on a Supreme court ruling that all states should define the laws of marriage as they see fit. Finally a judge that puts the power in the hands of voters again rather then in the hands of lawyers and judges. I welcome a Supreme court ruling on this issue. They would have to go against a 1972 ruling they made to put the power of the rules of marriage in the hands of the voters to change marriage laws. If this ruling stands it could reverse all the rest of the states marriage laws that were overturned and put the power back in the hands of the people again rather then in the hands of judges and lawyers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jul 2013
58,194
64,242
Nashville, TN
The “Big Bang” and evolution are not only consistent with biblical teachings, Pope Francis told a Vatican gathering – they are essential to understanding God.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything — but that is not so,” the pope told a plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment,” Pope Francis said.
?God is not a magician?: Pope says Christians should believe in evolution and Big Bang
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Czernobog

Former Staff
Dec 2011
35,477
20,095
Phoenix, AZ
AE is the only one politicizing the courts, here.
I kinda feel sorry for AE, and all the other theocrats. Up until now they could hold onto their delusions that marriage equality wasn't constitutional, because the Supreme Court hadn't actually ruled on it. I'm not so sure the 6th didn't do this on purpose. I mean, now that you have conflicting rulings coming from the Districts, SCOTUS kinda has to pick it up. What are these guys gonna do when the Court rules, once and for all, "Yup. Marriage is a right. Quit telling people they can't get married,"

They're gonna shit themselves, because they finally won't have anywhere left to go, and the issue will finally be dead - and not in their favour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,041
6,568
I agree with the ruling in the OP. This has clearly been a state, not a federal issue.

But those who defend traditional marriage have been sadly lacking in promoting a parallel institution that would have all the rights of marriage save the label. For example, "Green Unions" promote fewer offspring and better control dangerous forms of sex ( a point rarely mentioned in this debate is that the world health organization has identified male homosexual practices as a source of disease) that are common to many homosexual unions. By not actively promoting an alternative institution (and I don't think they will) they are making this the kind of inane confrontation that tears the country up.

So eventually the SCOTUS must get involved. Clearly the rights of gay Couples should be the same as others. And the right has had their chance to stand up for those rights and failed. In the meantime, the states should have their chances to percolate as much as possible.
 

Vortex

Former Staff
Dec 2006
19,921
8,636
home
I agree with the ruling in the OP. This has clearly been a state, not a federal issue.

But those who defend traditional marriage have been sadly lacking in promoting a parallel institution that would have all the rights of marriage save the label. For example, "Green Unions" promote fewer offspring and better control dangerous forms of sex ( a point rarely mentioned in this debate is that the world health organization has identified male homosexual practices as a source of disease) that are common to many homosexual unions. By not actively promoting an alternative institution (and I don't think they will) they are making this the kind of inane confrontation that tears the country up.

So eventually the SCOTUS must get involved. Clearly the rights of gay Couples should be the same as others. And the right has had their chance to stand up for those rights and failed. In the meantime, the states should have their chances to percolate as much as possible.
Of course you do, you still do not understand our legal system. I remind you again of all those states that passed and supported segregation laws, in particular the miscegenation laws, and what came of them and those so-called "state issues".

It is a federal issue if the constitution is involved, if individual rights are violated by the law.
 
Jul 2014
377
112
Atlanta
This is ridiculous! We have Ebola, Terrorists, Pedophiles, Rape, robberies, Homeless, and a hundred other things to worry about. They're wasting our time and money on this crap??? What a madness!
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,041
6,568
Of course you do, you still do not understand our legal system. I remind you again of all those states that passed and supported segregation laws, in particular the miscegenation laws, and what came of them and those so-called "state issues".

It is a federal issue if the constitution is involved, if individual rights are violated by the law.
And you have obviously not even looked at the case history. In 1972, the Scotus ruled that gay marriage was not a federal matter. In the next 10 years,a variety of rulings pointed out exactly what I have been saying, that the rights should be the same, but that the people need to decide what to do about the name. This view was repeated in New Jersey over a decade later. Multiple judges, including the SCOTUS itself, obviously did not, according to you, understand our legal system.

Sexuality is a behavior. Race is a trait. One is based on complex impulses. The other is set from birth. The two things are not the same. If they were, this would have been resolved decades ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.