Posted on 11/07/2014 6:07:44 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday stunningly affirmed the rights of voters in four states – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee – to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, throwing a boulder into the millpond of complacent assumptions by homosexual-rights advocates that same-sex marriage is a given across the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently has refused to take on any same-sex marriage cases, allowing the movement to expand into about 30 states.
But Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, which has fought on behalf of traditional marriage, said that now may change.
“With a divide in the appeals court rulings, the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue,” he said.
Previous rulings from the high court on the issue have found that the institution is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman. In 1942, it said marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” In 1888 it ruled, “An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Staver said marriage “is not merely a creation of any one civilization or its statutes, but is an institution older than the Constitution and, indeed, older than any laws of any nation.”
“Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’” he said.
The 6th Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision, concluding no federal judges should be making such a decision.
The pro-homosexual Marriage Equality organization called the ruling “out of step with the decisions of 40 other courts.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The anus does not equal the vulva. End of anatomical story.
Are you kidding? They will take down every single state. That is what they want. It’s not about their happiness. It’s about their determination to make everyone as miserable as they are inside.
Now that the Homosexual-in-Chief has been defanged the tide is going to start turning against the gay mafia.
Bingo. Finally.
There is an objective difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions: the former tend to produce offspring (which the state has an interest in promoting), while the latter absolutely cannot (hence the state has no objective interest in). Providing benefits to procreative couples who agree to care for their own offspring, as a carrot-and-stick facilitation, is vital to any social construct from tribe to superpower nation. Providing like benefits to couples utterly and plainly incapable of procreation (no more capable than a fish and a bicycle) serves nobody’s interests but their own, and smacks of the self-destructive “everyone deserves a trophy” culture.
It’s about maintaining and increasing their numbers. Since they cannot procreate, as a matter of absurdity, they must recruit.
If the SCOTUS ruled it is a matter for the States, then I suspect States that got “FORCED” into recognizing SSM, North Carolina and other states then can re-establish their State law. In the meantime, a bunch of licenses got issued and then, these Same-Sex Marriage debates, legislation, amendments, etc. will continually be put up for votes, either in the legislatures or state votes.
I read about the time the court cases started that some of the LGBT leadership thought this was a bridge too far.
They may have been right.
Pshaw. The law is now in the hands of a very few of people in *appointed* positions. :-/
Right, since this will have been the first time SCOTUS actually ruled on the issue. Last time they declined to hear the appeal.
But a favorable ruling would only turn the issue back to the 50 states. There would still be a variety of situations from one state to another. And the federal government would have to acknowledge “marriages” in states where it’s legal, since DOMA was ruled unconstitutional.
Which is why I am not optimistic that SCOTUS would uphold the 6th Circuit, since doing so would result in state control of marriage. As in the case of abortion, it would be tempting for them to rule so as to allow it from sea to sea.
Kennedy’s time to shine. Or should I say flame?
That's an interesting argument.
They don’t. This will have to go to the supremes.
Good!
Yeah, but I mean that they simply won’t stay in certain states or go to certain states.
Somehow i think even with such an amendment the leftist injustice system would simply ignore it.
Between the legal academic community their trained army of lawyers and ‘qualified’ judge st there is no possibility that law may be respected in this land contrary to their ideological agenda.
It is most clear that we need a revolution to restore law as written and understood by the authors rather than simply dictated and redefined by the elite of ivy league trained lawyers and ‘judges’.
When the practice of law no longer bares a commonly recognized resemblance to the text in which it was written nor the customs & practices of those who wrote it, it is clear that it is not law but tyranny that rules such men who follow its edicts.
It could not be more clear that Federal courts and indeed most of the academically trained ‘legal community’ now promote an idea of law that is was not written nor practiced by those who supposedly authorized it. That they call this ‘law’ simply because they said it was. In this environment the challenge is not to make new law but to overcome the tyranny of those who have usurped all existing law.
Why do they call it marriage equality, when there is no marriage?
Theses people are fools to beleive you can define a union between 2 people as something it is by the laws of nature incompatibly different from.
Even the will of the people cannot change nature, nor can the chief architect of lies politicians and their hand picked magistrates(judges) redefine that which is not theirs to redefine.
marriage is a procreative union, It requires a sexual relationship and life time commitment to resulting family. Thus it is a matter of natural law that only sexually compatible parties are both capable and disposed towards such a union.
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.