Gay marriage ban upheld in 4 states: U.S. Supreme Court cannot avoid this any longer

American Thinker ^ | 11/7/2014 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

The US Court of Appeals in the sixth district  upheld gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, setting the stage for what could be a Supreme Court showdown that would make the practice legal in all 50 states.

The 2-1 decision was the first legal setback for gay marriage advocates in federal court and creates a split among the nation's circuit courts. In these sorts of disagreements, the Supreme Cour uisually steps in with a definitive ruling.

USA Today:

More important, it gives Supreme Court justices an appellate ruling that runs counter to four others from the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits. Those rulings struck down same-sex marriage bans in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho and Nevada, leading to similar action in neighboring states.

Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of the Republican Party's most esteemed legal thinkers and writers, issued the 42-page decision precisely three months after hearing oral arguments in the cases, with fellow GOP nominee Deborah Cook concurring. He delivered a rare defeat for proponents of same-sex marriage, who had won nearly all the cases decided from Florida to Alaska since the Supreme Court ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013.

Sutton argued that appellate judges' hands are tied by a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling from 1972, which "upheld the right of the people of a state to define marriage as they see it." Last year's high court decision requiring the federal government to recognize legal same-sex marriages does not negate the earlier ruling as it applies to states where gay marriage is not legal, he said. The same reasoning was used by a federal district court judge in Puerto Rico last month.

[Telepathic Intruder]

The Supreme Court view on the constitution is basically screw it, we’ll decide what rights states do or don’t have.

[Gaffer]

Okay. Here’s what I expect. I’m thinking RBG will announce retirement and Evil Harry will try some technical maneuver to shuffle through a 50% +1 approval of Obama’s next nomination - A Wise Ghetto Yolanda, LaKeesha, or Nyquille activist judge or the like.

[VanDeKoik]

“Sutton argued that appellate judges’ hands are tied by a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling from 1972, which “upheld the right of the people of a state to define marriage as they see it.” “

I hear that the high court has a real distaste for overturning its own rulings.

Hopefully 5 of them will keep to that.

[mothball]

Holder or Bust baby!!!!

[Viennacon]

Surely they can avoid it...

They can just refuse to hear the challenge.

[Gaffer]

That is an option of course, but I think Obama will go for the unknown female - black of course.

[apillar]

Here's a interesting scenario. The Supreme Court takes the 6th District ruling upholding the gay marriage ban. During deliberations, Ginsburg (who is rumored to be in poor health) passes away, becomes incapacitated, whatever. Republican senate slow-walks, or doesn't approve Obama’s nominee. Gay marriage vote in the Supreme Court goes the same way as DOMA, but splits 4-4 because Ginsburg is gone. It's my understanding that the 6th circuit decision would be UPHELD as the law of the land under a tie, in this (admittedly implausible) scenario.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Technically, last year’s rulings from the Supreme Court on homosexual marriage were very limited.

They ruled that the federal government would recognize homosexual marriage from states in which it was legal.

And they ruled that nobody in California had standing to defend their marriage law, so by default, homosexual marriage resumed in California under court order.

These rulings did not establish whether there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

It’s possible that there aren’t five votes on the current Supreme Court to declare a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. They may rather dance around the edges of that with technical rulings on the subject instead.

[mothball]

Why not a black homosexual or one of those, like Dice Clay calls them, a transtesticle?

[OneWingedShark]

And they ruled that nobody in California had standing to defend their marriage law, so by default, homosexual marriage resumed in California under court order.

More than that, they ruled that the state's own Supreme Court could not certify standing. (IIRC, the CA supreme court ruled that the citizens did have standing.)

[ex91B10]

Equal protection under the law. Screw “judeo-christian” tradition.

[CodeToad]

They will rule for homosexuals, guaranteed.

[aimhigh]

This is a three judge opinion. Before a Supreme Court hearing is considered, it has to be appealed to the full 6th District court.

[43north]

“I’m thinking RBG will announce retirement...”

ruth buzzi ginzberg is a commie rat b@stard. Her retirement and replacement by another one won’t change the dynamics of the court.

[Buckeye McFrog]

So Anthony Kennedy’s clever little gambit to define gay marriage bans as “bigotry” and let the lower courts do his dirty work for him isn’t working out, eh?

Such a shame!