On Nov.6, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, as expected, upheld state laws that effectively barred same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, reported The New York Times.
Reacting to the news, constitutional experts predicted that the new ruling, which breaks with previous circuit court decisions on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, will likely prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to hear one or more cases dealing with the issue by the next term, with a ruling likely by June.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the USCCB's point man on this issue, praised the decision
Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for the majority in the 2-1 decision, ruled that state laws banning legal marriage between same-sex couples did not violate the right to equal protection and due process, guaranteed under the Constitution, as a slew of lower court decisions found.
Ed Whelan’s helpful summery of Judge Sutton’s findings, which include his acceptance of legal arguments that present a “rational” basis for defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, is here.
In a break with other circuit decisions on this issue, Judge Sutton concluded that any significant change in state laws governing the institution of marriage should be decided by the Supreme Court or by “the less expedient, but usually reliable, work of the state democratic processes.”
As Fox News noted, the justices have yet to issue a definitive ruling on this issue
The high court on Oct. 6 unexpectedly turned away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit gay and lesbian unions. The court's order effectively made gay marriage legal in 30 states. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the next day overturned same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, the fourth federal appeals court to rule against state bans.
A total of 32 states, along with the District of Columbia, now permit same-sex couples to legally marry
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
Court Marriage or Love Marriage is the legal right of both male and female that they can get married with each other according to their own wish and desire but lack of information and immense mental pressure due to social customs and behavior increases there agony.for more info visit Court Marriage
We need to pray for the courageous magistrates and judges who resign rather than be forced to participate in now-legal same-sex civil “marriages”. They will suffer. This is not a good economy for getting new jobs!
“A total of 32 states, along with the District of Columbia, now permit same-sex couples to legally marry”
This has been the meme, that states allow “gay marriage”, a more accurate statement would be that states have been forced to recognize this abomination by federal courts. There are very few states where this travesty was accomplished with the consent of the governed.
In response to Jeff. What happened to DOMA is that Obama, in his “evolvement” on the gay marriage issue, instructed Holder not to take actions to support any defense of the federal DOMA because Obama already ruled that it was “unconstitutional.” (Why bother with the Supreme Court when Obama can decide constitutionality by himself?) Whereas some think the duty of the president and his attorney general is to see that laws are enforced, Obama is a law unto himself. His policy agenda was rejected soundly on November 4, 2014 but he refuses to accept the vote as a sign of rejection. It will be amusing to watch his toady media contort as it comes up with a required spin that will exclude any culpability for Obama’s role in the election failures.
This right to “equal protection” seems to fall flat when you’re talking about a bad law. Looks like an excuse to force a bad law on other states. What happened to DOMA?
Evidently the voters in states with local DOMAs who opted to continue the traditional marriage concept have no voice in making a public determination of what constitutes a marriage. The truth of the matter is that there is equality of rights for all in that a gay male or lesbian woman has an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex if they desire marriage. If society is to redefine marriage in order to accommodate the LGBT desire to obtain spousal marriage benefits, then why limit marriage to only two people? Who is to say that three or more people cannot form a loving marriage union? Perhaps you will recall that Hillary Clinton, during deliberations on the FMA, asserted that “her husband’s DOMA” would endow states with the right to abrogate the full faith and credit clause with respect to gay marriage. This was in order to insure that states would not have to recognize same sex marriages performed in out of state jurisdictions. It is a simple matter to acknowledge that men and women are different in biology and that their marriages cannot be equated with the relationships of same sex individuals. Biology, in the case of gay marriage, rather than race, color, or creed, dictates that equality of relationships can never be equal in any comparison of marriages. Perhaps the constitution’s authors would have made specific provision for gay marriages if they wanted to but who would have ever doubted that marriage had already been defined over the last 2000 years. The Supreme Court should model its decision with the expressed will of the people who enacted the federal DOMA for starters instead of allowing the corruption of our culture by gay marriage.
Its still an open question whether the cases from the 6th Circuit will go the Supreme Court. The ruling from the 6th Circuit was from a three judge panel. The case may yet be heard en banc (all the judges of the 6th Circuit).
Marriage is ordered to the Good of the husband, the Good of the wife, and the Good of the new family that is created when a man and woman are joined together in marriage as husband and wife. Once you remove the necessary requirement for a marriage contract, and one of the necessary requirements for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, the ability and desire to exist in relationship as husband and wife, you are, in essence, promoting marriage fraud and the sin of adultery. The Constitution not only serves to secure and protect our Religious Liberty, it also serves to secure and protect us from fraud. The question is, how can it be Constitutional to promote marriage fraud and the sin of adultery, when to do so would deny both the spirit of the law and The Spirit of The Law? Truth will not contradict truth. One cannot be protecting the validity of a valid marriage while promoting marriage fraud and the sin of adultery, simultaneously.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.