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 ...
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....
No state has forced churches to marry same-sex couples. Yet.
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!
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
Well it’s about time we started electing people to office that WILL.
There is a fundamental Constitutional right to marry. It just does not extend to the “right” to redefine the term.
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.
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.
“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
We need a civil war in the worst way.
Child rape is next.
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?
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).
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...Exactly. Which is why it is a bad idea, as tempting as it may seem.
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....
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.
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.
And on what basis could these a-holes disallow multiple partners ? It’s more natural than fudgepacking.
Did you post this yesterday? Only problem is some churches (Presbyterian) marry homosexuals.
K
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.