Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ruling shows lack in gay marriage unanimity
TownHall ^ | 062614 | Nicholas Niccardi

Posted on 06/27/2014 7:43:39 PM PDT by NetAddicted

Edited on 06/27/2014 8:42:53 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

DENVER (AP) — A federal appeals court's gay marriage ruling contained two historic firsts: It was the first appellate decision for gay marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act one year ago, and it also marked the first time since then a federal judge has argued for keeping a state ban on same-sex marriages.

Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. was in the minority in his opinion as the two other judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel found the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of gay couples to marry. Kelly has broken the string of 16 state and federal judges who sided with gay marriage advocates in cases across the country over the past year. [snip]


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Can't find his ruling online.
1 posted on 06/27/2014 7:43:40 PM PDT by NetAddicted
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted

Never forget the activist judges who did overturn all these bands were both rat AND GOP appointees. Never trust the GOP.


2 posted on 06/27/2014 7:47:13 PM PDT by Viennacon (Rebuke the Repuke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted

I erred. It’s title is “Ruling shows crack in legal gay marriage unanimity”, & the author is Nicholas Riccardi. Sorry.


3 posted on 06/27/2014 7:47:39 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted
Read Judge Kelly's profile..

he sounds like he is a real libertarian that understands what libertarian is..

Not one of these Libertarian Party fakes ( aka, progressives in libertarian clothing) that wouldn't know what a libertarian was if it bit them in the ass

4 posted on 06/27/2014 8:13:25 PM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted

And we must have unaninimity, of thought. Diversity is for important things, like skin color.


5 posted on 06/27/2014 8:32:37 PM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

I read somewhere that he wrote they didn’t take into account an earlier marriage court case. Sounded important. Maybe they’ll be more of his opinion at the Supteme Court.


6 posted on 06/27/2014 8:41:23 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

bump


7 posted on 06/27/2014 8:42:21 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted
Spin

A minority opinion is not a victory.

If the SC refuses to take this up, which I think is likely, then gay marriage will exist and be legally sanctioned in the 10th Circuit. More importantly other circuits may follow the 10th which has the reputation as being one of the more conservative Appeals courts...

8 posted on 06/27/2014 8:57:57 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted
...since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act...except that SCOTUS didn't strike down the "Defense of Marriage Act - it struck down only one part of the act, saying that even though states decided to prevent same-sex marriage their citizens who wanted such marriages still were entitled to federal benefits - it will be interesting to see how the Supremes handle those cases still ahead in which judges struck down state bans on SSM based on the presumed federal prohibition when in fact that supposed prohibition actually left the decision up to the states......
9 posted on 06/27/2014 8:59:54 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ
Yeah I never figured out how in light of the SCOTUS decision that states COULDN'T ban gay marriage, under the 10th amendment.

And the rulings recently hinge on the 14th. About "equal protection".

Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about gays anywhere, or smokers, or pedophiles.

Doesn't mean EVERYBODY is treated "equally" under the law.

But apparently gays are somehow "special".

There is literally NO defense when the polygamists come calling.

Or say brothers getting married, or parents and children.

If "love" is the ONLY requirement for marriage, who CAN'T get married.

10 posted on 06/27/2014 10:47:26 PM PDT by boop (I just wanted a President. But I got a rock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NetAddicted

Marriage - one man, one woman.

This whole ‘homosexual marriage’ hustle is bunk.

When you redefine words to mean anything you choose, words come to mean nothing.


11 posted on 06/28/2014 1:29:06 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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