ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

Appeals court: States can define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman

Posted By Bob Unruh On 11/06/2014

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.”

jimahrens Loc: California

I just say it in my in box. Now supreme court will have to take it up and they will not set president maybe put end to this gay marriage shit

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

So let's say that it does come down to state's rights and each state can make its own decision about the definition of marriage.

How then does the full faith clause come to bear on my same-sex marriage, which is legal in California (where it was performed) once I move to a state where it is not legal?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Paul, I would encourage you to stay in California because the Full Faith Clause does not apply. Many gay rights advocates insist that you are covered regardless of what state you relocate to, which would essentially force another state to recognize your marriage. Here is the problem, none of these people has bothered to read the Full Faith and Credit Clause to establish applicability. Many religious people were concerned about Mass and their laws...if there would be some massive marrying happening and then people relocating.... In our 200-year constitutional history, there has never yet been a federal constitutional amendment designed specifically to reverse a state's interpretation of its own laws. Goodridge, whether decided rightly or wrongly, was decided according to Massachusetts' highest court's view of Massachusetts law. People in other states have no legitimate interest in forcing Massachusetts to reverse itself -- Massachusetts will do that itself, if and when it wants to -- and those who want to try should certainly not cite the Full Faith and Credit clause in rationalizing their attempts.
The clause has never been applied to marriages. Longstanding precedent from around the country holds that a state need not recognize a marriage entered into in another state with different marriage laws if those laws are contrary to strongly held local public policy.

Now then, this does not mean that courts in each state can not be petitioned to hear your case, for example in AZ a couple of men were living together and they went to good old California and got married. They returned to Arizona where one dropped dead. The remaining partner, due to the laws on the books, could not collect SS benefits and so on. He petitioned the court, the state law was changed. And now he is feeding off the nipple of the government.

So, stay put in your state where you got married and live a happy life.... Or force your lifestyle on a state that does not want or recognize same sex marriage and sue them to force all the people within that state to acknowledge your lifestyle.

Oh, you can find copies of the clause in your local library, your country court house, and at your Country Registrar Office.

KHH1

For the fact that righties want less government, unless it is serving the purpose of imposing their VALUE SYSTEM on the citizens of this country. What makes you righties think you can legislate your value system to others. You all really think you are special....trying to assign yourself authority over the life's choices of others.....who do you think YOU ARE?**

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I guess the same could be asked of the left leaners. Why do you think that you can insist that everyone bend to your wills and notions. I think that government should stay out of people's bedrooms and start managing the nation. I think that each state should manage the issuance of marriage licenses.

Who do I think I am.... gee, I am a person. I am a US citizen. I have the same rights as you do. My rights do not trump yours and yours does not trump mine. Keep your bedroom activities to yourself and I will not have any complaints. That is pretty simple. I will not tell you about my heterosexual activities and please do not tell me about your homosexual, Apotemnophilia, Ursusagalmatophilia, Klismaphilia , Coprophilia , Dacryphilia , Formicophilia , Harpaxophilia , Mysophilia, Paraphilic infantilism, Furries, Beastiality , Necrophilia , poney play, Autoerotic asphyxiation , or Vorarephilia and any other activities you are a participant.

To be sure, most that are not like you, do not want to know about your bedroom....unless you have a new decorator and want to show off their work. But, really how would anyone know you are gay unless you announce it? And why would or how would that even come up in conversation? Dinner party over the shrimp... "Aren't these the cuties, oh and by the way I am a homosexual that plays the dominate male role????" I just could not imagine such a conversation in my social circle. Oh well. Now you know!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

khh1: We are your worse enemy...your parents screwed you and we will straighten you up... or ship you and your ilk out!
Are you ready for 2016...At this rate it will be another tsunami! Now get back on your meds! Remember this is a Republic not a mob-rule system!!!!

Caboose Loc: South Carolina

************************************************
I herd about this on Fox news yesterday. Im proud to see the
6th court stand for whats legal and right. I have felt all along
that these activist judges striking down states rights to ban queer marriage was a concerted effort from obama and his
queer activist. Destroying normal marriage is one of the items
on his list to destroy America. Marriage is not in the US Constitution therefore it is States Rights not Federal.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

It's not so much my wanting our rights to govern you, but your rights governing me. I think there are a lot more straight people in this country then gay, so if a state wants to not have gay marriage, then that is what the majority want. But you on the other hand want a small minority to govern the rest of the country with your life style. You are telling me that if 99.8% of the people in a state want nothing to do with gay marriage, then you are going to force it on them because you have as much right to marriage as they do. Well, you do, as long as it is a man and a woman marriage and not gay marriage.

Where do you get off telling the rest of the country that your rights override ours and that you can force your agenda on us and into our lives, schools, churches, and families. You are interested it shoving it on our faces and make us learn your life style when in fact we have no desire to know anything about how you live. I don't want gay for a day in my schools or having you shove it in my face while in the military and a lot of other things you just love to do. You aren't happy with just marriage, you want everything and you want it shoved in my face. Until you get to shove it in my face, you aren't really happy.

Every time to gay community gets what they want, it goes overboard and to an extreme. You aren't really happy until you are cramming it down our throats. Well, personally, I am sick of it. I am sick of people like you telling me what to do and how I have to act and who I am allowed to do it with. I never wanted to know about your life style and really could care less what you did in your bedroom, but now you are forcing it in my face and I don't like it one bit. I left you alone and let you do pretty much anything you wanted to do, but you still were not happy. Well, tough shit. That doesn't give you the right to come into my life and I really don't like it. If you keep this up, you will get a lot more then just a rebuff from the straight community and I will tell you right now that you will NOT like it.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

I will bet that not many people knew there were that many parafilias, and that is not the whole list. Years ago we encountered a man who said that what really turned him on was to masturbate with the placenta of a sheep. Go figure that one. Too bad he didn't stick with that instead of including boys in his sexual activities.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Excellent comments. they express the thoughts of most heterosexuals that I know.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Hard to say.

If Mass allowed 3 people to marry each other in a single union, or allowed a man to marry a goat, would California have to recognize it?

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Ginny - Many thanks for your (mostly!) rational response. It was a catalyst for me to read a bit on the clause...always a good thing to get a little more educated.

And you are absolutely correct that the historical interpretation of the clause (see full text below) has not applied it in every situation, and not traditionally in marriage. It's interesting to note that the clause itself does not reference marriage specifically one way or the other. I think what we are seeing is exactly what our founders intended: the courts are doing their job in interpreting and applying the law (and, in reference to my question, the constitution.) While I am not pleased with the opinion of the Sixth Circuit, I'm not terribly surprised. The Sixth Circuit covers an extraordinarily conservative group of states (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee) so might be expected to rule as they did. Similarly no one should be surprised by more liberal rulings of the Ninth Circuit (heavily influenced by California, Oregon and Washington, even though the circuit includes Alaska, Arizona, Hawai'i, Idaho, Montana and Nevada)

I feel the logic of the 6th circuit is flawed, but then I am not a legal scholar. Ultimately it will of course work its way through the courts.

Since every poll I see shows a dramatic national move towards supporting marriage equality (hovering around 56% of the population in favor) I have cause for hope for a positive outcome.

And in fact I do intend to stay in California, though not just for marriage equality. I'm not a native (grew up in northern Florida) but California is definitely home after 20 years here. I love it for the beauty of the land, its diversity and open attitudes, and phenomenal weather. It's been very good to me!

Article IV
Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Blacksheep

SCREECH, flapping of wings, wrawwwk, SCREECH! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, SCREECH?

What an ass. The party in power has always asserted it's authority over the American people, just as the Democrats have been doing. Look at the Affordable (not) Health Care Act (ACA, Obamacare, same thing). That's a takeover of our health care system by the government in power. Look at Income Taxes. You want Value Systems? Look at allowing homosexuals into our military, the destruction of the institution of traditional marriage, the attacks on Christian religious symbols. What do you call that, you brain-dead SFB POS moron?

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

BlackSheep: A great thing happened yesterday...the six district court of appeals ruled in the favor of four states...this will bring this entire debacle to the Supreme Court...which will say it is a State's issue...!
Nullification will rule out in the end!!! Again, same sex will be an individual States issue! CA will need visas to leave the land of fruits and nuts!!!