Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court: States Can't Ban Gay Marriage
ABC Ch 7 Fort Myers ^ | 6/25/14 | Nicholas Riccardi and Brady McCombs

Posted on 06/25/2014 3:48:01 PM PDT by marshmallow

DENVER (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled for the first time Wednesday that states cannot prevent gay couples from getting married, extending the movement's legal winning streak and bringing the issue a big step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex.

"It is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of love and commitment of same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples," the judges wrote, addressing arguments that the ruling could undermine traditional marriage.

The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down Utah's gay marriage ban. It becomes law in the six states covered by the 10th Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But the panel immediately put the ruling on hold pending an appeal.

The Utah attorney general's office planned to appeal the decision but it was assessing whether to go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court or ask the entire 10th Circuit to review the ruling, spokeswoman Missy Larsen said.

Wednesday's decision "takes us one step closer to reaching certainty and finality," the office said in a statement.

After the ruling, the couples named in the appeal hugged, cried and exchanged kisses at a news conference outside their attorney's offices in downtown Salt Lake City.

"This decision is an absolute victory for fairness and equality for all families in Utah, in every state in the 10th Circuit and every state in this great nation of the United States," said their attorney, Peggy Tomsic.

Plaintiff Derek Kitchen said he and his partner, Moudi Sbeity, are "so proud to be a part of.........

(Excerpt) Read more at abc-7.com ...


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; marriage

1 posted on 06/25/2014 3:48:01 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

not recognizing something is not the same as a ban


2 posted on 06/25/2014 3:49:46 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
fundamental right to marry

Huh?

3 posted on 06/25/2014 3:50:48 PM PDT by jtal (Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Another judge demonstrating the need to impeach these idiots.


4 posted on 06/25/2014 3:51:09 PM PDT by Fledermaus (Conservatives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

States should just refuse to recognize it, that wouldn’t be a ban. It would just be saying it doesn’t exist.


5 posted on 06/25/2014 3:52:44 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

BS.


6 posted on 06/25/2014 3:53:32 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

To be the devils advocate I agree, but NO STATE is required to perform ANY MARRIAGE. With that these States should Just BAN MARRIAGE at the State Level and leave it up to Churches...


7 posted on 06/25/2014 3:58:41 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Where is the “fundamental right to marry” in the U.S. Constitution. I know where the “right keep and bear arms” is.


8 posted on 06/25/2014 3:58:43 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
To the extent the government should be involved at all in marriage, it certainly falls under the purview of the States, and the federal government is prohibited by lack of authority in Art 1, Sec 8 of the Constitution to make any regulations at all about marriage.

/johnny

9 posted on 06/25/2014 3:59:26 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jtal

“fundamental right to marry
Huh? “

It’s right in the Constitution in the next paragraph after the right to abortion.


10 posted on 06/25/2014 3:59:46 PM PDT by headstamp 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Well, that was a short stop at “each state can make its own rules on this”, which is what advocates had been saying for a long time. For the most part, gay marriage is court-imposed. Most states that held votes on it voted against it. And now the courts are saying there is a “consensus” for gay marriage. There is a consensus only among the judges.
11 posted on 06/25/2014 4:01:43 PM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

So you agree with the leftist homo radicals then:

destroy the traditional institution of marriage

“Leave it up to the churches”.... then gay marriage would be happening all over the place and the law will force us to recognize it as legal anyway and business owners would still be sued out of existence and all that....

surrender doesn’t work


12 posted on 06/25/2014 4:02:02 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2
in the next paragraph after the right to abortion

And they babble about that being a "fundamental right" to, even though it's been considered a heinous crime for thousands of years

13 posted on 06/25/2014 4:02:39 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jtal
Huh?

Absolutely. It's right up there with your fundamental right to murder your baby and your fundamental right to commit sodomy.

14 posted on 06/25/2014 4:03:35 PM PDT by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

It is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of love and commitment of same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples,” the judges wrote, addressing arguments that the ruling could undermine traditional marriage.


Not true. Countries which legalized homo marriage saw a steep decline in traditional marriage.


15 posted on 06/25/2014 4:06:18 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Federal judges rule states - more power than the governor’s ...


16 posted on 06/25/2014 4:07:47 PM PDT by SkyDancer (If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read newspapers you are misinformed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

with the separation of church and state... someone explain to me how fedgov can order churches to go against their doctrine?


17 posted on 06/25/2014 4:08:41 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

Civil Unions between homosexual couples are not recognized as marriage under the eyes of god.

They want to make fools of themselves, let them. Frankly I just laugh and ask how the civil union is working out. Went through this with my friend’s brother a couple of weeks back.

I asked him how was the civil union working out. He gets all snarky and says he is married. So I asked him what church he get married in. He calls me a homophobe. I said that’s a vast improvement from all the times he called me a racist.


18 posted on 06/25/2014 4:13:25 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("Heck of a reset there, Hillary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I dont agree in any way but the Feds dont do Marriage, My first inclination is to tell the Inferior Court to go pound sand, and arrest the Judge for subverting the rights of a FREE STATE, while citing the US Constitution where it says “ In All Cases where a State is a party to the action, the Supreme Court SHALL have original jurisdiction.” But marriage is and always has been a State Issue, The State could ELIMINATE MARRIAGE altogether and any and all laws associated with it. And then they don’t have to recognize ANY marriage. No Benefit, No big deal.
I agree surrender is not an option, but since Congress refuses to do it’s job, the States will have to call their bluff and then punch them right in the nose and force them from society. Hell name the law Eliminating marriage after the JUDGE.


19 posted on 06/25/2014 4:18:56 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RginTN
Countries which legalized homo marriage saw a steep decline in traditional marriage.

Evidence is completely irrelevant to these people, including evidence of the great harm to children that is sure to come from this madness.

20 posted on 06/25/2014 4:25:16 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
To be the devils advocate I agree, but NO STATE is required to perform ANY MARRIAGE. With that these States should Just BAN MARRIAGE at the State Level and leave it up to Churches...

Not necessarily a bad idea, but it would be (in the short term, at least) a logistical nightmare. Marriage is intertwined with so many different areas of the law....

21 posted on 06/25/2014 4:32:13 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sten
with the separation of church and state... someone explain to me how fedgov can order churches to go against their doctrine?

No state has forced churches to marry same-sex couples. Yet.

22 posted on 06/25/2014 4:33:12 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

When will we have Federal Legislators (in Congress) grow a pair and tell the Federal Judiciary that they can’t overrule state Constitutional Law?? More appropriately: When will we have a state legislature backed by an actual Conservative governor stand up and tell the Feds: NO!


23 posted on 06/25/2014 5:26:02 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

If we didn’t see it in 40+ years of federally imposed legalized murder of unborn people I doubt we will with ‘gay marriage’ now.

Freegards


24 posted on 06/25/2014 5:34:41 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Well it’s about time we started electing people to office that WILL.


25 posted on 06/25/2014 5:41:51 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jtal

There is a fundamental Constitutional right to marry. It just does not extend to the “right” to redefine the term.


26 posted on 06/25/2014 5:43:20 PM PDT by BurningOak (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Loving v Virginia court ruled that marriage is a non-enumerated right citizens nevertheless have. I agree with that 100%. Redefining marriage is a completely different thing.


27 posted on 06/25/2014 5:44:35 PM PDT by BurningOak (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Historically, marriage was created by God as a sacred and “religious” ritual. So what happened to separation of church and state? The left wants to destroy every good thing that God gave us.


28 posted on 06/25/2014 6:14:39 PM PDT by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

“Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church. It is so only when a matter of conscience is involved.” —Martin Luther

The Reformers believed that marriage was largely a civil matter, as far as I can tell. Of course they never imagined anything like ‘gay marriage’ and would have certainly rejected it, even though the civil authorities accepted it. But once it became a civil matter, the state in the modern era just kept changing it and by that time many had become conditioned to think the state actually could define and redefine it, first with really easy civil divorce and remarriage and now with ‘gay marriage.’

Freegards


29 posted on 06/25/2014 6:27:56 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

We need a civil war in the worst way.


30 posted on 06/25/2014 7:27:00 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Child rape is next.


31 posted on 06/25/2014 7:35:23 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Wonder if Utah could do that. If it works, sounds like a good idea. Wonder what the Supreme Court (other than Ginsburg) will rule & when?


32 posted on 06/25/2014 8:21:21 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: NetAddicted

The Supreme Court may never rule.

There’s no need to grant cert if the other Courts of Appeals keep ruling the same way, or don’t even need to rule as in the First, Second, Third and DC Circuits because of legislative legalization, unappealed lower court decisions, or unappealable state-grounds decisions from state high courts.

The conservatives know they’ll be outvoted so have an incentive not to grant cert. For the liberals, the political victory of gay marriage will seem far more secure if it the product of 20 separate judicial and political decisions, rather than one Supreme Court ruling.

The only Courts of Appeals with a real chance to hold against gay marriage are the Fourth and the Fifth Circuits, and we’ll have their decisions within weeks (Fourth) and a few months (Fifth).


34 posted on 06/26/2014 4:51:35 AM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; eyeamok
To be the devils advocate I agree, but NO STATE is required to perform ANY MARRIAGE. With that these States should Just BAN MARRIAGE at the State Level and leave it up to Churches...

Not necessarily a bad idea, but it would be (in the short term, at least) a logistical nightmare. Marriage is intertwined with so many different areas of the law....
Exactly. Which is why it is a bad idea, as tempting as it may seem.

That would be a radical overhaul of the way our society has handled marriage, greater even than homosexuals re-defining the word to let them join.
35 posted on 06/26/2014 6:35:38 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
Another judge demonstrating the need to impeach these idiots.

Pitchforks, torches, and Rails, is a better answer. Run then all out of town and if needed out of country. Bring back public shaming in this nation especially aimed at perverts and immoral or corrupt goverenment officials.

36 posted on 06/26/2014 6:51:15 AM PDT by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: highball

If we continue to play by their rules we will LOSE, the game is rigged. The scumbags with hammers are going to continue to run roughshod over We the People and Congress will continue to do nothing about it, Somewhere the Strategy must change in order to prevail.


37 posted on 06/26/2014 8:20:12 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
"Somewhere the Strategy must change in order to prevail."

I've been saying just that for years, my friend.

We won the early victories, and have been coasting on that ever since. We stopped listening, while the left has been adapting their strategy, learning from defeat and winning. Winning in the courts, in the legislatures and (worst of all) in the hearts and minds of "We the People". Now what was incomprehensible two decades ago is now supported by a majority of Americans.

I fear that this particular war is lost, but you are absolutely right. We do need to change our strategy so we don't lose the next one.
38 posted on 06/26/2014 9:57:53 AM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

And on what basis could these a-holes disallow multiple partners ? It’s more natural than fudgepacking.


39 posted on 06/26/2014 10:46:49 AM PDT by jimt (Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Did you post this yesterday? Only problem is some churches (Presbyterian) marry homosexuals.
K


40 posted on 06/26/2014 6:49:49 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

And millennials.


41 posted on 06/26/2014 6:51:03 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

Anybody research that?


42 posted on 06/26/2014 6:52:48 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Okay, you posted it here. Going thru the comments, I found my post to you.


43 posted on 06/26/2014 6:59:32 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson