Posted on 11/12/2014 9:52:15 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The ruling on Thursday by the 6th United States Circuit Court of Appeals warns of changing the biological definition of marriage and thus opening the door to polygamy. The Denver Post reported,
Breaking ranks with other federal courts around the country, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that states have the right to set rules for marriage and that changing a definition that dates to "the earliest days of human history" is better done through the political process, not the courts.
"Surely the people should receive some deference in deciding when the time is ripe to move from one picture of marriage to another," said Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for himself and a fellow George W. Bush appointee, while a Bill Clinton appointee dissented.
The ruling ran counter to a remarkably rapid string of victories for the gay rights movement over the past few months that have now made same-sex marriage legal in at least 30 states.
In fact, four other U.S. appeals courts in other regions of the country ruled in recent months that states cannot ban gay matrimony.
Sutton also stated that ignoring the scientific basis of marriage as one man and one woman and declaring the historic definition of marriage to be irrational, the legal door is opened to the eventuality of polygamy and additional combinations of marital partners. The Denver Post continued,
But Sutton suggested that the same argument that says there is a constitutional right to gay marriage could be used in support of polygamy or some other combination.
"If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage," he wrote.
Justice Sutton’s argument is on target. Due to the conflicting opinions in the appellate courts, this matter will now move to the Supreme Court. The Constitutionally accurate opinion of the Supreme Court would be that each of the 50 states be allowed to decide the status of marriage, as our Constitution gives the Supreme Court no standing to redefine the scientific or social definition of marriage.
naturally...
Exactly why can’t consenting adults have more than one wife or more that one husband? What is the 6th Circuit thinking?
Ping.
We need a Federal Marriage Amendment because this court will be overturned by the Supreme Court without one. No one can question what the Supremes will do. The left lied about being for states’ rights from the start just to stop the FMA. Now that their lie has been exposed and the GOP will have enough state legislatures to pull it off, we need to do what we should have done in the first place.
The strategy behind the GLBT and HRC assault on marriage begins to dawn on some of the black-robed brethren.
“But watch out for in your ear. “
Good point bump.
I feel there is both a man and a woman trapped in my body. They love each other and want to get married and file a joint tax return with an additional dependent. /s
+1
+1
What about those of us with multiple personalities? Could we not be married to multiple partners?
I am married four times over, and have two dependents with each partner.
Gimme my refund.
I made a bet with some friends that within 5 years polygamy would be legalized in at least one state by actions of an unelected federal judge. Sadly I still expect to win this bet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.