Skip to comments.Federal appeals court overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage
Posted on 06/25/2014 10:08:35 AM PDT by Alter Kaker
In a decision coming from Utah, a federal appeals court on Wednesday for the first time backed gay marriage.
The Denver-based U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court decision that struck down the state's bans on same-sex marriage.
The ruling, which was stayed, sets the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which touched off the current round of legal fighting on the issue when it struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This was a decision by a three judge panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two of the three judges are Republican appointees. One by George H. W. Bush and the other by George W. Bush.
Well there you go.
The states should just exert their 10th amendment rights ant tell FedGov to pound sand... /s
Upheld a lower court ruling. This is all going to Supreme Court. That means it is going to Kennedy, the guy who gave us Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), US vs Windsor (2013). The decision has been made 20 years ago. Thanks alot Ronald Reagan.
You need to include a picture of Reagan in there, he appointed Kennedy which as done incalculable damage to the republic.
What's depressing is that not one federal court has ruled against gay marriage since Windsor. So the Supreme Court doesn't even need to rule unless some Appeals Court disagrees.
Kennedy has become a homosexual lover.
The Bush 41 judge ruled against gay marriage, while the Bush 43 judge said it was awesome.
And, of course, this is all due to a Reagan judge, Kennedy.
Garbage thinking. Complete garbage.
Beware of PC, pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause. The Supreme Court has historically clarified 14A on issues like this.
For example, regardless that Virginia Minor argued to the Supreme Court that her citizenship in conjunction with 14A gave her the right to vote regardless that she was a woman, the Court clarified the following about that amendment. 14A introduced no new rights. It only strengthened constitutionally enumerated rights.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly protect woman suffrage before Mrs. Minor argued her case, 14A's Equal Protections Clause did not automatically give them the right to vote after that amendment was ratified.
Likewise, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, 14A didn't automatically create such protections regardless of the misguided opinions of institutionally indoctrinated judges.
Note that Virginia Minor's efforts to argue womens' right to vote were not wasted. This is because the states subsequently ratified the 19th Amendment to the Constitution which effectively gave women the right to vote.
But it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, the right to marriage in this example.
I pray and fast every Wednesday morning for the upcoming July 2 marriage trial in Florida.
I hope you all join me in some way this week praying for that case. The attorney general of Florida, Pam Bondi is DEFENDING MARRIAGE.
Why the sarcasm tag?
You’re talking about the olden days. The SCOTUS has always reflected the values and thinking of the political elites in the era in which it served. Nothing’s changed.
The problem is judge made law isn’t good law, not for sweeping issues like this. They’re trading SSM for religious liberty. How has that worked out in history?
The game plan has been to challenge the state laws and get a case going on up to the Supremes.
Will we get their decision in the next year or so.....a Roe v. Wade on gay marriage.....could be???
I think the end game comes after the inevitable legalization of gay marriage, when free speech and religious freedom come under attack.
That is what concerns me, the use of this gay marriage issue as a vehicle to drive the abrogation of Constitutional Rights for Americans who disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage.
A back door to the government taking over and controlling religion and religious belief.
Thank God we elected for a Republican President and stopped more activist judges from getting on the bench. Gotta vote GOP for the judges. < /sarcasm>
So what! Ignore it. Go about the business of banning the marriages and recognition of such.
Nick posts an article on Indiana and federal judicial oppression, and the mod closes it and shuttles us to this article on Utah, same subject. What’s up with that?
One federal judge rules a whole state - from the governor on down.
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.