GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Sixth Circuit: Ix-Nay on Ay-Gay Arriage-May

November 8, 2014 by V the K

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana Tennessee, and Kentucky… embracing the radical, extremist view that the people and their democratically-elected legislators have the right to define social institutions such as marriage.

Yesterday, a three judge panel upheld same sex marriage bans in four states. The judges writing for the majority banked their opinion not on the merits of same sex marriage, but whether or not the decision to allow same sex marriage should be left to the states and the people, or to judges applying the Constitution generally.

It now goes to the Supreme Court (most likely), where the persistence of liberty will depend on … how much John Roberts wants to be loved by the NY Times editorial page.

Filed Under: Gay Marriage

Comments

  1. Paul says

    November 8, 2014 at 12:39 pm - November 8, 2014

    Indiana isn’t in the 6th Circuit…it’s in the 7th, where the anti-equality law was reversed and the SCOTUS denied review. We have gay marriage here in the Hoosier state.

    And I’m kinda glad they upheld the laws…it means the issue will be put to rest much faster and this crap will finally be over. 😀

  2. Just Me says

    November 8, 2014 at 2:23 pm - November 8, 2014

    There’s a part of me that thinks this decision was intentional in order to get the matter before the SCOTUS.

    Either way I think the SCOTUS is going to take this matter up and gay marriage will be recognized in every state.

    Then the gay left will sue even more bakers, photographers and chapels.

  3. Steve says

    November 8, 2014 at 3:27 pm - November 8, 2014

    I am pretty sure O-Hole’s NSA has some dirt on Roberts to make him fold on Obamacare. Its really disingenuous to push gay marriage by judicial fiat when we cant even get it via voting anywhere not even in CA. Rabbits need to understand they cant keep poking a wolf that is not well feed.

  4. Paul says

    November 8, 2014 at 4:17 pm - November 8, 2014

    What Just Me said. I read the opinion, and from a legal standpoint, it was very weakly written. It was so bad that even the old-school cultural conservatives Scalia and Thomas would laugh it out of court.

    We may even get Roberts on our side for a 6th vote…it was THAT bad.

  5. RSG says

    November 8, 2014 at 8:11 pm - November 8, 2014

    There’s a part of me that thinks this decision was intentional in order to get the matter before the SCOTUS.

    That’s a big part of me who feels the same way. Circuits have been folding left and right and there is a wide swath of the populace who is becoming more and more irritated at the apparent rolling over of the courts and just want someone to say “Hey, wait a minute…”

    Haven’t read the decision yet to see if it is as bad as Paul says, but SCOTUSblog has a pretty good analysis, IMHO. At least the argument about marriage being the purview of the states is being raised in one of the few instances.

  6. The_Livewire says

    November 8, 2014 at 8:58 pm - November 8, 2014

    I was wondering that issue myself, if it was decided to force the issue.

  7. Paul says

    November 9, 2014 at 12:43 am - November 9, 2014

    There’s officially a Circuit split. The SCOTUS will most likely take it due to the legal magnitude of the issue.

  8. KCRob says

    November 9, 2014 at 4:49 pm - November 9, 2014

    The will of the people isn’t always right – slavery comes to mind – and courts are correct in overriding said will. Of course, courts can be dreadfully wrong as well (see Dred Scott).

    But court override of the people’s will should be reserved for extraordinary cases. As Robert Bork said of Griswold v Connecticut (Conn. law banning use of contraception), a stupid law isn’t necessarily an unconstitutional law.

    Once SCOTUS affirms the ability of judges to routinely override the will of the people, I cannot imagine any grounds for upholding laws against polygamy, cousin marriage, or even sex with consenting minors.

    Chesterton’s remark about removing fences without knowing their reason for being there comes to mind… we’re tearing them down as fast as we can.

  9. The_Livewire says

    November 9, 2014 at 8:36 pm - November 9, 2014

    agree with you on all points KCRob. Constitutional != good, or bad for that matter.

  10. Paul says

    November 9, 2014 at 11:53 pm - November 9, 2014

    This is an extraordinary case. We’ve seen the effects of gay marriage in the USA for 10.5 years now. If you want to do a worldwide analysis, we’ve seen it for 13.5 years.

    It’s time.

    Come June 2015, it’ll be a 50-state reality.

  11. Sean L says

    November 10, 2014 at 11:45 am - November 10, 2014

    NOM put out robocalls in San Diego urging Republicans to vote for DeMaio’s Democrat opponent because wasn’t gay, and it would be better to vote for a minority-party candidate than a majority party candidate- we can’t have those filthy queers affecting national policy, now can we?

    I’m sorry, I tried to give NOM the benefit of the doubt, but when you would rather vote for the other party’s candidate because “at least he’s not gay,” you are a bigot. Pure and simple. I challenge anybody here to tell me that isn’t so.

  12. rusty says

    November 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm - November 10, 2014

    Just for you Sean

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/IMG_13041246263447_zpsxypborwo.jpeg

  13. Jonathan G says

    November 10, 2014 at 5:28 pm - November 10, 2014

    Why should the State be in marriage period? Regardless of a SCOTUS decision, we should consider other options! I don’t want the State in my bedroom and neither should gay people or straight people for that matter! This should be a religious institution matter. I mean if a Methodist church wants to marry a gay couple while a Southern Baptist church would obviously refuse to do that’s entirely fine. Have the option of civil union contracts for couples in legal matters and leave marriage inside the church, the mosque and/or the synagogue. Anyone who advocates State involvement in marriage right or left is a socialist in my book.

  14. Throbert McGee says

    November 10, 2014 at 8:37 pm - November 10, 2014

    Anyone who advocates State involvement in marriage right or left is a socialist in my book.

    In the English legal tradition, the State has been formally “involved” in marriage at least since the 1750s, from what I can tell — certainly, the idea considerably predates “socialism” as a concept.

Categories

Archives