Posted on 07/28/2014 11:21:44 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
WASHINGTON — The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held Monday that Virginia’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages is unconstitutional. On a 2-1 vote, the appeals court joined the wave of court decisions declaring such bans unconstitutional. The decision, by Judge Henry Floyd acknowledged both the debate over such laws and, in the court’s view, the clear constitutional impediment to laws banning same-sex couples from marrying.
“We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable,” he wrote. “However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws.”
The court’s opinion is not effective immediately. According to the court’s judgment in the case, the judgment will take effect after the mandate is issued in the case. The mandate, under the court’s rules, will be issued “7 days after expiration of the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later.”
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
When will a state secede? The 10th amendment is being stomped on.
My wife asked her sister the other day what percentage of the population is gay. She said 25%. Scary, huh.
No one did it over the imposed legality of killing unborn people in 40+ years, I doubt if it happens now over ‘gay marriage.’
FReegards
The constitution does not define marriage. A state could pass a law declaring it to be ilegal to marry a man to a animal and eventually some judge would strike it down.
There is also no going back to "civilized" slavery.
IT was a 2-1 decision.
Meanwhile...
EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT: NO RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
258
4
131
by AUSTIN RUSE 25 Jul 2014 225 POST A COMMENT
The highest human rights court in Europe has told European LGBTs that they have no human right to same-sex marriage, in a case that also shows how complicated sexual and marital norms have become in this new transsexual world.
The case arose after a man in Finland, who was married with a child, decided he wanted to live as a woman. After a sex-change operation, he attempted to change his governmental “male identity number” to a female one. He was turned down because, according to law, he needed his wife’s consent to change their man-woman marriage to a “registered partnership”, which she had withheld.
The problem in short is that this married man and woman could no longer be considered married in Finland if he changed his sex to female because Finland does not allow same-sex marriage. The couple would be required to accept a “registered partnership”, something they objected to.
The couple sued and told the court that “a divorce would be against their religious convictions” and that a “registered partnership did not provide the same security as marriage” and that “their child would be placed in a different situation from children born within wedlock.”
Some of the claims made by the plaintiffs made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities show how complicated these matters can become. Among other things the transsexual said the court’s decision -— that a “registered partnership” was appropriate for their relationship -— required that his wife had to become a lesbian and that a registered partnership would mean he could no longer be a “legal father to his child and could not be her mother either, as a child could not have two mothers.”
Lower courts repeated told the couple that a registered partnership was on par with marriage and rejected their claims, which they took to the European Court of Human Rights, which oversees the European Convention of Human Rights signed by 47 member states of the Council of Europe, which is distinct from the European Union.
The high court said there two competing rights that needed to be balanced; the “applicants right to respect for her private life by obtaining a new female identity number and the State’s interest in maintaining the traditional institution of intact.”
The court reiterated that nothing in the Convention on Human Rights imposed an obligation on States to allow same-sex marriage. The court said his alternatives were either a registered partnership, something that requires his wife’s approval, or divorce.
The court further said “it cannot be said that there exists in any European consensus on allowing same-sex marriage” and that same-sex marriage is allowed in only ten of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
The decision flies in the face of ongoing LGBT claims that same-sex marriage is about to sweep in the world. In fact, same-sex marriage is recognized in only 18 countries out of more than 200 listed in the CIA World Fact Book or the 192 member states of the UN.
Just last month the Italian Constitutional Court rejected same-sex marriage and said civil unions were sufficient to protect same-sex couples.
The Finnish man and his wife remain defiant. On his website he said, “I will stay married after this judgment. There is nothing on earth that will get us separated. We won’t terminate our marriage. We do not call it cis or trans or whatever. It is a religious marriage as I have proven to the court.”
Judge Paul Niemeyer saw it otherwise, dissenting from the decision and writing, “Because there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage and there are rational reasons for not recognizing it, just as there are rational reasons for recognizing it, I conclude that we, in the Third Branch, must allow the States to enact legislation on the subject in accordance with their political processes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_V._Niemeyer
Biography[edit]
Niemeyer was born in Princeton, New Jersey. He attended Kenyon College (A.B., 1962), where he played on the school’s baseball team. He then studied at the University of Munich, before pursuing his legal education at Notre Dame Law School (J.D., 1966). Niemeyer was admitted to the Maryland bar and practiced commercial law at Piper & Marbury (now DLA Piper) in Baltimore, Maryland from 1966 to 1988. In 1984, Niemeyer co-authored the Maryland Rules Commentary,[1] a treatise on the rules of procedure in the Maryland state courts. From 1973 to 1988, he was a member of the Maryland Court of Appeals Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.[2] In 2006, Niemeyer published A Path Remembered: The Lives of Gerhart & Lucie Niemeyer.[3] Niemeyer’s father, Gerhart Niemeyer (1907–1997),[4] was a political philosopher and professor of government at the University of Notre Dame. Niemeyer is married and has three sons.
Judiciary[edit]
Niemeyer was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on September 11, 1987 to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to fill the seat vacated by Frank A. Kaufman. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 19, 1988, and received his commission on February 22, 1988. Niemeyer served on the district court until his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was nominated to the Fourth Circuit by President George H. W. Bush on May 11, 1990, to fill the seat vacated by Harrison Lee Winter. Niemeyer was confirmed with the unanimous consent of the United States Senate on August 3, 1990, and received his commission on August 7, 1990. In 1993, Niemeyer became a member of the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He served as chair of the committee from 1996 through 2000. Niemeyer is a member of the American Law Institute and has taught Appellate Practice at Duke Law School. His chambers are located in Baltimore, Maryland.
On 28 July 2014, Niemeyer dissented from a 4th Circuit ruling that struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. In his dissent, he argued that under a rational basis test Virginia’s ban should be deemed constitutional.[5]
Clerks[edit]
Clerk Started Finished School (Year)
Sean Eskovitz[6] 1995 1996
Jeffrey Klein 1997 1998 Harvard (1997)
Neil Richards 1997 1998 Virginia (1997)
Steven Warshawsky 1997 1998 Georgetown (1997)
Kevin Walsh 2002 2003 Harvard (2002)
Donald E. Childress III (Trey) 2004 2005 Duke (2004)
Paul Nathanson 2004 2005 Harvard (2004)
Karen Servidea 2004 2005 Virginia (2004)
Katie Bagley 2005 2006 Virginia (2005)
Bryan Killian 2005 2006 Harvard (2005)
Micah Schwartzman 2005 2006 Virginia (2005)
Jeffrey Davidson 2006 2007 Yale (2006)
Matthew Krueger 2006 2007 Minnesota (2006)
Michael Nemelka 2006 2007 Virginia (2006)
Brian Foster 2007 2008 Notre Dame (2007)
Ajeet Pai 2007 2008 Virginia (2007)
Keri Steffes 2007 2008 Yale (2007)
Andrew Blair-Stanek 2008 2009 Yale (2008)
Alison Buckley 2008 2009 Northwestern (2008)
Destiny Duron-Deas 2008 2009 Duke (2008)
Dave Baltmanis 2009 2010 Northwestern (2009)
Christopher DiPompeo 2009 2010 Penn (2009)
Nikki Ellington 2009 2010 Virginia (2008)
Elise Borochoff 2010 2011 Harvard (2010)
Kevin King 2010 2011 Northwestern (2010)
Kathryn Ladewski 2010 2011 Michigan (2010)
Justin Murray 2011 2012 Georgetown (2010)
Jonathan David Shaub 2011 2012 Northwestern (2011)
Luke McCloud 2011 2012 Harvard (2011)
Sources[edit]
Paul V. Niemeyer at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
His Grandson
Unfortunately, the kind I voted for twice. And to add insult to injury, I voted for John McCain and Mitt Romney the other two times. I learned my lesson after Romney. Never again will I fall for their line of, “Vote for our guy or the Democrat wins”.
Nah, didn't think so............
Wullllllll, GollllLLLLY, Srgt. Carter!!!!
Lookie what they done now!!
The coprophiliacs and lesbians win again.
The Bush family are liberals. Why would anyone be surprised.
Not even 1 percent of America is actually gay. It’s well below a whole percent.
Your point re: Minor v. Happersett is irrelevant. That quote concerns the “privileges and immunity” clause - no one is arguing that “same sex marriage” bans violate that clause. The argument is that they violate the equal protection clause. That argument is wrong, for reasons that get repeated over and over again in these threads, but the Minor language has no bearing.
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.