Appeals Court: States Can Define Marriage As 1 Man, 1 Woman

[BCSpace]

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday stunningly affirmed the rights of voters in four states – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee – to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, throwing a boulder into the millpond of complacent assumptions by homosexual-rights advocates that same-sex marriage is a given across the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently has refused to take on any same-sex marriage cases, allowing the movement to expand into about 30 states.

But Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, which has fought on behalf of traditional marriage, said that now may change.

“With a divide in the appeals court rulings, the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue,” he said.

Previous rulings from the high court on the issue have found that the institution is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman. In 1942, it said marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” In 1888 it ruled, “An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Staver said marriage “is not merely a creation of any one civilization or its statutes, but is an institution older than the Constitution and, indeed, older than any laws of any nation.”

“Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’” he said.

The 6th Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision, concluding no federal judges should be making such a decision.

“Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us – just two of us in truth – to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four states of the Sixth Circuit.”

The pro-homosexual Marriage Equality organization called the ruling “out of step with the decisions of 40 other courts.”

The organization said states as diverse as “Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Utah” recently have “embrace[d] marriage equality.”

“It is clear that the freedom to marry is a fundamental constitutional right that belongs to all Americans, not just some Americans,” said spokesman John Lewis.

But the organization did not note that a vast majority of the states that have “embraced” same-sex marriage have done so largely by judicial decree, after voters in many of those states specifically chose to define in their laws or even constitution marriage as one man and one woman.

Before federal judges stepped in, the wave of state affirmations of traditional marriage was virtually unstoppable, with victories in 31 of 31 elections.

Critics have argued that if the traditional definition is dropped, there would be no legitimate reason to continue bans on incest or polygamy.

That opinion was included in a legal decision in California, where judges created same-sex marriage.

State Supreme Court justice Marvin Baxter, writing a dissent, said: “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.

“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”

His warning?

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

The 6th Circuit said: “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the states…. One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children.”

And the judges wrote: “Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them…. People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative. And governments typically are not second-guessed under the Constitution for prioritizing how they tackle such issues.”

There is a logic behind traditional marriage, they said.

“What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g., with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the states created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the states of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the states to retain authority.”

Byron Babione, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said: “The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws. As the 6th Circuit rightly concluded, the Constitution does not demand that one irreversible view of marriage be judicially imposed on everyone. The 6th Circuit’s decision is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in Windsor that marriage law is the business of the states.”

The ruling from the 6th Circuit reversed district court rulings that had struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

It conflicts with rulings from the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits.

Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, described by USA Today as one of the Republican Party’s most esteemed legal thinkers and writers, issued the 42-page decision. Deborah Cook concurred.

Sutton noted a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling from 1972 also “upheld the right of the people of a state to define marriage as they see it.”

Sutton concluded: “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.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said: “We applaud the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for upholding the freedom of the people to define marriage as the union of a man and woman. The Sixth Circuit rightly recognizes that the Constitution does not demand that this modern redefinition of marriage be forced on the States. The American people simply will not accept a nationwide redefinition of marriage imposed on them by a judicial oligarchy.

“As the debate continues, recent polls and the election demonstrate that support for marriage redefinition is stalling as Americans begin to experience and consider the consequences for religious freedom, free speech, and parental rights.”

“Where marriage is redefined, parents are increasingly finding a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curricula is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children. And as more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, many Americans are beginning to see that this is about far more than the marriage alter, but is about fundamentally altering society.”

 

Appeals court: States can define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman - Definition 'shared not long ago by every society in the world'

 

 

The US Supreme Court may yet indeed be forced to make a ruling.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

 

Definite possibility, but they could also remand it back for further consideration.

[Robert F. Smith]

The US Supreme Court may yet indeed be forced to make a ruling.

Your citation of California State Supreme Court justice Marvin R. Baxter's dissenting opinion that “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted" is a slur on early Mormon polygyny and upon the common practice among the biblical Patriarchs by equating it with incest.  Moreover, as in the 1878 Reynolds decision, he notes that such exclusions "are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous."

 

This tells us that Justice Baxter recognizes that Reynolds may soon be overturned and desperately wants to prevent that.

[jwhitlock]

Love the quote from Marriage Equality that Utah has "embraced" SSM.

 

Evidently their definition of "embraced" includes having something crammed down your throat.

[bluebell]

I agree that the use of the word "embraced" isn't very honest.

Out of all the states that now allow SSM, did any of them vote it in? I'm honestly asking as I have no idea.

[Kenngo1969]

I agree that the use of the word "embraced" isn't very honest.

Out of all the states that now allow SSM, did any of them vote it in? I'm honestly asking as I have no idea.

See here: http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857.

[bluebell]

Thanks Ken!

So it looks like out of the 31 states where SSM is legal, only three of those actually embraced it.

[jwhitlock]

Thanks Ken!

So it looks like out of the 31 states where SSM is legal, only three of those actually embraced it.

 

The quote from Marriage Equality is interesting, in that it's evidence of their ongoing willingness to revise history and facts to fit their agenda. Misrepresentation as a methodology for pushing SSM has been surprisingly successful, given the number of federal judges that have been taken in by it.

[Daniel2]

Love the quote from Marriage Equality that Utah has "embraced" SSM.

Evidently their definition of "embraced" includes having something crammed down your throat.

John, I promise not to cram my husband down your throat if you promise not to cram your wife down my throat.

Does one instance of uncalled-for hyperbole justify a response of equal hyperbole...?

The only ones cramming anything down others throats are those seeking to impose their view of marriage upon everyone else--something marriage equality does NOT do.

You are free to marry heterosexually... as you have always been. No one advocating equality for same-sex couples seeks to force you to marry a same-sex spouse.

Sadly, the reverse cannot be said of those who oppose civil same-sex marriage. You would enforce mandatory acceptance of straight marriage only, therefore denying those of us who choose a spouse of the same-sex the equal recognition and protrctions that you enjoy (assuming you are straight and heterosexually married).

Please stop forcing your marriage views on those of us who can and will peacefully coexist with your type of marriage, but who choose a same-sex spouse for ourselves.

There is room for us both in this great nation of ours.

I wish you and your wife the best and happiest life and family.

Will you do the same, for my husband and I...?

If not, who is attempting to enforce their views on others....? Whom is trying to "cram down the throats" of who...?

[Daniel2]

Thanks Ken!

So it looks like out of the 31 states where SSM is legal, only three of those actually embraced it.

Do you believe it's possible that a majority of voters in some states that initially voted against same-sex marriage have come to embrace it....?

If polling in such states now shown that a majority support marriage equality for same-sex couples, would you agree it would be accurate to say that such states now "embrace" equality in marriage?

[Robert F. Smith]

The quote from Marriage Equality is interesting, in that it's evidence of their ongoing willingness to revise history and facts to fit their agenda. Misrepresentation as a methodology for pushing SSM has been surprisingly successful, given the number of federal judges that have been taken in by it.

Federal judges haven't been "taken in" by the propaganda.  It is rather the Zeitgeist which has come a cropper.  Federal judges have been broadening the application of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution now for many decades, i.e., Equal Protection of the Laws.

 

In addition, previous assumptions were often false, e.g., compare Justice Frank Murphy's contempt for the false social notions against polygyny in Reynolds -- Cleveland v United States (1946), in C. Anzalone, ed., Encyclopedia of Supreme Court Quotations (Sharpe, 2000), 38.

 

See also:

Rod Dreher, “Why The Polygamy Slope Is Slippery,” The American Conservative, December 16, 2013,, online at  http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/why-the-polygamy-slope-is-slippery/comment-page-2/ .

 

Paul Finkelman, ed., Religion and American Law: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 1999), 92-93, online at http://books.google.com/books?id=nWO2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT108&lpg=PT108&dq=hugo+black,+polygyny&source=bl&ots=p4y9H_P7Tz&sig=xffnw3j0Rg2QBY126wyv-5fW8A8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F8VdVLOBHpKpogTbvoCwAw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=hugo%20black%2C%20polygyny&f=false  .

 

Stephanie Beswick, "’We Are Bought Like Clothes’: The War Over Polygyny and Levirate Marriage in South Sudan,” Northeast African Studies, 8/2 (2001):35-61 [10.1353/nas.2005.0023],  online at https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/northeast_african_studies/v008/8.2beswick.html  .

[jwhitlock]

John, I promise not to cram my husband down your throat if you promise not to cram your wife down my throat.

Does one instance of uncalled-for hyperbole justify a response of equal hyperbole...?

The only ones cramming anything down others throats are those seeking to impose their view of marriage upon everyone else--something marriage equality does NOT do.

You are free to marry heterosexually... as you have always been. No one advocating equality for same-sex couples seeks to force you to marry a same-sex spouse.

Sadly, the reverse cannot be said of those who oppose civil same-sex marriage. You would enforce mandatory acceptance of straight marriage only, therefore denying those of us who choose a spouse of the same-sex the equal recognition and protrctions that you enjoy (assuming you are straight and heterosexually married).

Please stop forcing your marriage views on those of us who can and will peacefully coexist with your type of marriage, but who choose a same-sex spouse for ourselves.

There is room for us both in this great nation of ours.

I wish you and your wife the best and happiest life and family.

Will you do the same, for my husband and I...?

If not, who is attempting to enforce their views on others....? Whom is trying to "cram down the throats" of who...?

 

I was wondering how SSM supporters would spin a judicial mandate to Utah as somehow "embracing" SSM. Unfortunately, given the fact that there are -->more<-- men with SSA in mixed gender marriages then there are in same sex marriages undermines your claim that traditional marriage between a man and woman somehow crams something down your throat.

 

Perhaps you can give me some statistics about how many straight men are now joyfully embracing SSM in their lives now that it's legal.

 

The state of Utah, in affirming by vote that marriage is only between a man and a woman, did not cram anything down the throat of gays, many of whom married within that structure.

 

A federal judge, by overriding the will of the people that gave everyone the same rights in the same structure of marriage, did indeed cram SSM down the throat of Utah.

 

That means Marriage Equality is dishonest in claiming that Utah has "embraced" SSM.

[jwhitlock]

 

Federal judges haven't been "taken in" by the propaganda.  It is rather the Zeitgeist which has come a cropper.  Federal judges have been broadening the application of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution now for many decades, i.e., Equal Protection of the Laws.

 

In addition, previous assumptions were often false, e.g., compare Justice Frank Murphy's contempt for the false social notions against polygyny in Reynolds -- Cleveland v United States (1946), in C. Anzalone, ed., Encyclopedia of Supreme Court Quotations (Sharpe, 2000), 38.

 

See also:

Rod Dreher, “Why The Polygamy Slope Is Slippery,” The American Conservative, December 16, 2013,, online at  http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/why-the-polygamy-slope-is-slippery/comment-page-2/ .

 

Paul Finkelman, ed., Religion and American Law: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 1999), 92-93, online at http://books.google.com/books?id=nWO2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT108&lpg=PT108&dq=hugo+black,+polygyny&source=bl&ots=p4y9H_P7Tz&sig=xffnw3j0Rg2QBY126wyv-5fW8A8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F8VdVLOBHpKpogTbvoCwAw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=hugo%20black%2C%20polygyny&f=false  .

 

Stephanie Beswick, "’We Are Bought Like Clothes’: The War Over Polygyny and Levirate Marriage in South Sudan,” Northeast African Studies, 8/2 (2001):35-61 [10.1353/nas.2005.0023],  online at https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/northeast_african_studies/v008/8.2beswick.html  .

 

 

Federal judges are as much a product of the cultural biases and agendas of their times today as they were in the past.

 

The extensive anti-Mormon propaganda of the 19th century heavily influenced federal judges and Congress in that era when it came to polygamy.

 

The misrepresentations and sound bites of SSM supporters heavily influence federal judges today.

 

As far as broadening equal protections go, SSM in particular has little to do with equal protection, and more to do with special privilege. It is ironic to see at the same time that SSM is being mandated under the false rationalization of providing gays with a right everyone else has, religious freedom is being steadily diminished.

 

All of it has to do with agendas and current cultural influences on judges.

[california boy]

Federal judges are as much a product of the cultural biases and agendas of their times today as they were in the past.

 

The extensive anti-Mormon propaganda of the 19th century heavily influenced federal judges and Congress in that era when it came to polygamy.

 

The misrepresentations and sound bites of SSM supporters heavily influence federal judges today.

 

As far as broadening equal protections go, SSM in particular has little to do with equal protection, and more to do with special privilege. It is ironic to see at the same time that SSM is being mandated under the false rationalization of providing gays with a right everyone else has, religious freedom is being steadily diminished.

 

All of it has to do with agendas and current cultural influences on judges.

I don't know why anyone bothers to argue these tired unfounded points any longer.  It is clear that the courts have viewed the arguments on both sides and come to a pretty clear decision.  All Americans are entitled and protected by the constitution.  There are some rights that are not up for a vote.  Those who think they can prevent others from equal protection by a vote are wrong.  It is why we have federal courts as a third part of our government.  Their job is to protect citizens and ensure their rights are upheld and that laws are not passed that take away those guaranteed rights.

 

Just as I stand up for equal protection of gay citizens, I also stand up for equal protection of Mormons.  When the Mormon church want to renew polygamy as their right of equal protection and overturn a bad supreme court decision of the 1800's, count me as a supporter of their right to marry whoever they want.  It certainly will not effect my life or my marriage if I choose to marry.

[jwhitlock]

I don't know why anyone bothers to argue these tired unfounded points any longer.  It is clear that the courts have viewed the arguments on both sides and come to a pretty clear decision.  All Americans are entitled and protected by the constitution.  There are some rights that are not up for a vote.  Those who think they can prevent others from equal protection by a vote are wrong.  It is why we have federal courts as a third part of our government.  Their job is to protect citizens and ensure their rights are upheld and that laws are not passed that take away those guaranteed rights.

 

Just as I stand up for equal protection of gay citizens, I also stand up for equal protection of Mormons.  When the Mormon church want to renew polygamy as their right of equal protection and overturn a bad supreme court decision of the 1800's, count me as a supporter of their right to marry whoever they want.  It certainly will not effect my life or my marriage if I choose to marry.

 

"Tired and unfounded" only because SSM supporters choose to misrepresent and dismiss them rather than honestly address them.

 

Of course, given that Marriage Equality is claiming that Utah has "embraced" SSM, it's clear that facts are not that important to SSM supporters. One of those facts is that SSM is a special privilege, and not a right that everyone else had that was being denied to gays. It has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection being denied by a vote, as you so misrepresent it.

[bluebell]

Do you believe it's possible that a majority of voters in some states that initially voted against same-sex marriage have come to embrace it....?

If polling in such states now shown that a majority support marriage equality for same-sex couples, would you agree it would be accurate to say that such states now "embrace" equality in marriage?

I definitely think it's possible, but I also definitely think we will never know if it has happened or will ever happen.

It's impossible to tell if any change in sentiment about SSM among a population previously forced to accept it would be caused by an embracing of such marriages, a type of Stockholm syndrome, or just an acceptance of what they perceive as inevitable.

So no, in states where acceptance of SSM was mandated by law, I don't agree that a new showing of support automatically dictates an embrace of such marriages.

[ERayR]

The only ones cramming anything down others throats are those seeking to impose their view of marriage upon everyone else--something marriage equality does NOT do.

 

It is obvious that ones view of this depends on which side you are coming from.  Those who are opposed to our point of view are trying to cram it down our throat.  Funny thing on this issue both are right. 

[jwhitlock]

When we talk about the misrepresentations of SSM supporters, one of those misrepresentations concerns what SSM is really all about. What we don't hear is that SSM is really designed to redefine marriage or do away with it altogether.

 

Here's a link to an article about Marsha Gessen, a lesbian who has been surprisingly candid about how she views marriage.

[Daniel2]

"Tired and unfounded" only because SSM supporters choose to misrepresent and dismiss them rather than honestly address them.

Of course, given that Marriage Equality is claiming that Utah has "embraced" SSM, it's clear that facts are not that important to SSM supporters.

Why do you lump all marriage-equality supporters into one singular group that has a singular voice, and then denounce all SSM marriage supporters as bring uninterested in facts or truth...?

It's clear that Utah, as a state, as NOT "embraced" same-sex marriage, merely because it is not legal.

Hopefully, you'll reconsider before condemning an entire group of people as dishonest just because a spokesperson for one organization which doesn't speak for everyone made a careless, casual, thoughtless, and/or innacurate/wrong remark.

One of those facts is that SSM is a special privilege, and not a right that everyone else had that was being denied to gays. It has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection being denied by a vote, as you so misrepresent it.

Pot, you're as black as the kettle you just condemned.

SSM is NOT a special priviledge that has been granted to gays and lesbians. The fact is that straight individuals are free to marry someone of the same sex, so same-sex marriage is not an exclusive or special privilege granted only to gays or lesbians.

With marriage equality, consenting adult couples retain the right to legally and lawfully wed, regardless of ethnicity, disabilityn, age, religion, race, or gender.

It's that simple.

[Robert F. Smith]

Federal judges are as much a product of the cultural biases and agendas of their times today as they were in the past.

 

The extensive anti-Mormon propaganda of the 19th century heavily influenced federal judges and Congress in that era when it came to polygamy.

 

The misrepresentations and sound bites of SSM supporters heavily influence federal judges today.

 

As far as broadening equal protections go, SSM in particular has little to do with equal protection, and more to do with special privilege. It is ironic to see at the same time that SSM is being mandated under the false rationalization of providing gays with a right everyone else has, religious freedom is being steadily diminished.

 

All of it has to do with agendas and current cultural influences on judges.

Of course judges are influenced by the Zeitgeist, JW, which is why I used the word (perhaps you didn't notice), but it is nonsense to suggest that SSM misrepresentations and sound bites heavily influence federal judges today.  They are not nearly so gullible as the hoi polloi, and their strict, logical legal training requires a separate rationale for their decisions.  Maybe you need to read their decisions, and take a ConLaw course in college.  A real eye-opener.

 

One can see that clearly in their reassessment of Jim Crow laws and other racial discrimination, which they progressively struck down -- despite the religious claims that certain people were inferior as a judgment of God, and that the Bible told them so.  An instance in which the religious freedom to oppress for some needed to be diminished so that the freedoms of others could be granted --- as our society becomes ever more egalitarian.  Special privilege has nothing to do with it, although some reparations have been paid (as for the victims of unlawful arrest and incarceration -- the West Coast Japanese-Americans in WW II are a prime example), and although affirmative action policies sought to redress the ethnic imbalance in higher education.

 

Through it all, the Equal Protection of the Laws is a key to redress of a range of imbalances in our society.  Naturally such changes will cause a ruckus.  What did you expect?

[jwhitlock]

Why do you lump all marriage-equality supporters into one singular group that has a singular voice, and then denounce all SSM marriage supporters as bring uninterested in facts or truth...?

It's clear that Utah, as a state, as NOT "embraced" same-sex marriage, merely because it is not legal.

Hopefully, you'll reconsider before condemning an entire group of people as dishonest just because a spokesperson for one organization which doesn't speak for everyone made a careless, casual, thoughtless, and/or innacurate/wrong remark.

Pot, you're as black as the kettle you just condemned.

SSM is NOT a special priviledge that has been granted to gays and lesbians. The fact is that straight individuals are free to marry someone of the same sex, so same-sex marriage is not an exclusive or special privilege granted only to gays or lesbians.

With marriage equality, consenting adult couples retain the right to legally and lawfully wed, regardless of ethnicity, disabilityn, age, religion, race, or gender.

It's that simple.

 

"Marriage Equality" is the name of the organization that made the statement, according to the OP. My experience with SSM supporters is that they conveniently ignore facts germane to the discussion in making their claims - just as you have done here.

 

I was very clear in phrasing SSM as a privilege because gays and lesbians are the only people who are going to use it. While there are many people with SSA who enter into mixed gender marriages, and while the right of marriage within the structure of a man and a woman was available to all adults, and since straight people are simply not going to enter into SSM relationships, it is more than clear that SSM is a privilege and NOT a right that others had that was denied to gays. I was very clear in my post about that, and you ignored it.

 

Your use of "It's that simple" makes my point. You want to keep it simplistic without considering the troublesome aspects of SSM because those aspects undermine what you're saying. 

[jwhitlock]

Of course judges are influenced by the Zeitgeist, JW, which is why I used the word (perhaps you didn't notice), but it is nonsense to suggest that SSM misrepresentations and sound bites heavily influence federal judges today.  They are not nearly so gullible as the hoi polloi, and their strict, logical legal training requires a separate rationale for their decisions.  Maybe you need to read their decisions, and take a ConLaw course in college.  A real eye-opener.

 

One can see that clearly in their reassessment of Jim Crow laws and other racial discrimination, which they progressively struck down -- despite the religious claims that certain people were inferior as a judgment of God, and that the Bible told them so.  An instance in which the religious freedom to oppress for some needed to be diminished so that the freedoms of others could be granted --- as our society becomes ever more egalitarian.  Special privilege has nothing to do with it, although some reparations have been paid (as for the victims of unlawful arrest and incarceration -- the West Coast Japanese-Americans in WW II are a prime example), and although affirmative action policies sought to redress the ethnic imbalance in higher education.

 

Through it all, the Equal Protection of the Laws is a key to redress of a range of imbalances in our society.  Naturally such changes will cause a ruckus.  What did you expect?

 

Of course I noticed your use of Zeitgeist which is why I responded more clearly to what actually happens with judges today.

 

I read their decisions. I shake my head at their decisions. Some of my friends in the legal profession shake their heads at their decisions. There are far too many occasions where there seems to be no strict logical legal training evident in what they're pronouncing.

 

We had a case where I live where a young woman was found guilty during repeated appeals to a murder she had committed. A federal judge, in one of the most bizarre decisions I have ever seen, overturned everything, found her innocent and pronounced that the county in which I live was guilty of railroading her. Subsequent appeals put her back in jail where she belonged. Turns out he had an agenda and he was following that agenda, and not strict, logical legal training.

 

This happens more than you'd like us to believe. I find it somewhat ironic that you're unaware of the fact that while the courts rightly addressed racial discrimination, they at the same time let religious discrimination stand when it came to the Latter-day Saints, and that the addressing of real discrimination then extended itself into areas of privilege, such as preference quotas and forced busing, which have proved damaging. It's like the judicial herd gets on a roll and can't figure out where to stop. I'm gratified for the courageous judges in the OP that recognized this problem in the judiciary and threw a roadblock up on it.

 

As I've noted, Equal Protection has no bearing on SSM since SSM is nothing more than a special privilege. It's going to be just like all of the other judicial entitlements that have been mandated (the ADA is becoming a disaster, in case you hadn't noticed). To say that the judiciary has been restrained or rational in cramming SSM down states' throats is simply ridiculous.

[thesometimesaint]

SEE Loving v Virginia.

[california boy]

"Tired and unfounded" only because SSM supporters choose to misrepresent and dismiss them rather than honestly address them.

The trouble with this tired defense is that in a court of law, it is facts that court cases are based on, not false misrepresenting claims.  When those that wanted to ban SSM had to stand in front of a judge and under oath make most of the claims that were made in the Prop 8 advertising, they had nothing to say.  They couldn't say under oath the harm SSM does to their marriages.  They couldn't say under oath that because of SSM then children would be taught to be gay in kindergarden.  They couldn't say under oath that children were forced to attend a gay wedding.  In fact, those who want to ban SSM found that in a court of law, there was very little that they could say to justify not allowing gay Americans the civil rights they are entitled to.  

 

Sure you can always claim "activist judges" didn't allow them to say unfounded statements.  But it has now been 50 court hearings.  50.  Conservative judges, liberal judges you name it, have not found statements that were factual in a court of law that gives them a reason not to allow SSM.  And that is why your rhetoric is tired, and unfounded.  And those are the facts, not some emotional handwringing.

 

 

 

Of course, given that Marriage Equality is claiming that Utah has "embraced" SSM, it's clear that facts are not that important to SSM supporters. One of those facts is that SSM is a special privilege, and not a right that everyone else had that was being denied to gays. It has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection being denied by a vote, as you so misrepresent it.

 

I have no idea where you got the idea that all laws have to apply to everyone.  It certainly is not in reality.  Traffic laws only apply to people who drive a car.  They don't apply to pedestrians.  Loving vs Virginia only apply to interracial couples.  They don't apply to anyone else.  Commerce laws only apply to individuals who own businesses.  Voting laws only apply to U.S. citizens that are over 18.  Need I go on?  There are actually very few laws that apply to everyone.  Many are found in the constitution. One of them is Equal Protection under the law.  One right that you seem to think should only apply to heterosexual couples.

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course I noticed your use of Zeitgeist which is why I responded more clearly to what actually happens with judges today.

 

I read their decisions. I shake my head at their decisions. Some of my friends in the legal profession shake their heads at their decisions. There are far too many occasions where there seems to be no strict logical legal training evident in what they're pronouncing.

 

We had a case where I live where a young woman was found guilty during repeated appeals to a murder she had committed. A federal judge, in one of the most bizarre decisions I have ever seen, overturned everything, found her innocent and pronounced that the county in which I live was guilty of railroading her. Subsequent appeals put her back in jail where she belonged. Turns out he had an agenda and he was following that agenda, and not strict, logical legal training.

 

This happens more than you'd like us to believe. I find it somewhat ironic that you're unaware of the fact that while the courts rightly addressed racial discrimination, they at the same time let religious discrimination stand when it came to the Latter-day Saints, and that the addressing of real discrimination then extended itself into areas of privilege, such as preference quotas and forced busing, which have proved damaging. It's like the judicial herd gets on a roll and can't figure out where to stop. I'm gratified for the courageous judges in the OP that recognized this problem in the judiciary and threw a roadblock up on it.

 

As I've noted, Equal Protection has no bearing on SSM since SSM is nothing more than a special privilege. It's going to be just like all of the other judicial entitlements that have been mandated (the ADA is becoming a disaster, in case you hadn't noticed). To say that the judiciary has been restrained or rational in cramming SSM down states' throats is simply ridiculous.

Aside from the lack of substance in your comments, your manner of speaking indicates that you have no training or experience in the administration of justice, and are not able to discriminate between good and bad judicial decision-making.  You apparently do not understand the U. S. Constitution nor the function of the judiciary.  I do not believe that you actually have read important decisions.

 

I am not so concerned with the fact, for example, that the California federal judge (Vaughn Walker) who made an important negative decision on Prop. 8 happened to be homosexual, and should have recused himself, since there are other judges who eventually backed him on principle.  We always read emotional claims that this or that judge or court is cramming some legal requirement down somebody's throats, without any concern at all for the legal principles involved.  You seem unable to address those concerns, and like the White Southerners who constantly condemned the federal judiciary for reversing structural racism (including regular lynchings), you seem unable to deal with the inevitable change which is coming in the area of non-traditional marriage.  No one is asking you to like or promote non-traditional marriage, only that you not unlawfully deny it to others.  That is the direction such decision-making is taking us, willy nilly.