Posted on 08/27/2014 4:23:45 AM PDT by John W
CHICAGO (AP) — Federal appeals judges bristled on Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.
Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, hit the backers of the ban the hardest. He balked when Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson repeatedly pointed to "tradition" as the underlying justification for barring gay marriage.
"It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away," the 75-year-old judge said. Prohibition of same-sex marriage, Posner said, derives from "a tradition of hate ... and savage discrimination" of homosexuals.
Attorneys general in both states asked the appellate court to permanently restore the bans, which were ruled unconstitutional in June. Its ruling could affect hundreds of couples who married after lower courts tossed the bans and before those rulings were stayed pending the Chicago appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Gay marriage promotes disease. Do any lawyers come at it from that perspective? Anal sex is a health risk. Gay marriage should be outlawed on that alone.
Hate to burst your bubble, but many heterosexuals also engage in anal sex.
besides this is a common law nation
Not sure which we lost first, but we've managed to lose both our way and our integrity.
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
~Aristotle
I'm confused -- I don't support gay marriage, but is it your contention that gay marriage causes gays to have sex with each other? Because I'm pretty sure they do that regardless...
The word “Ban” doesn’t even apply in these cases. In all of these cases, there is no one preventing any of these homosexual couples from having a ceremony, living together, or otherwise living as though they were “married.” Their living arrangement is simply not legally defined as a marriage. To ban something is to prevent it or to have penalties in the law (fines, jail time, etc.) for violating the ban - there are no penalties levied against homosexuals who choose to have a living arrangement similar to a marriage while living in a state that does not recognize such arrangements as marriage.
obvious they knew something, look at the damn mess we have running around now!
Mike
What stops one man and one woman (homosexual or heterosexual) from doing the same thing now?
“... is it your contention that gay marriage causes gays to have sex with each other?”
YES! Just like with heterosexuals. The more marriage they have, the more sex they have. It is much healthier for gay people not to get married. Then they won’t have any sex — or certainly not with multiple partners.
This is the logic that has been introduced in court case after court case. Is there any doubt why it is losing?
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.