Posted on 11/07/2014 6:07:44 PM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday stunningly affirmed the rights of voters in four states – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee – to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, throwing a boulder into the millpond of complacent assumptions by homosexual-rights advocates that same-sex marriage is a given across the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently has refused to take on any same-sex marriage cases, allowing the movement to expand into about 30 states.
But Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, which has fought on behalf of traditional marriage, said that now may change.
“With a divide in the appeals court rulings, the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue,” he said.
Previous rulings from the high court on the issue have found that the institution is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman. In 1942, it said marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” In 1888 it ruled, “An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Staver said marriage “is not merely a creation of any one civilization or its statutes, but is an institution older than the Constitution and, indeed, older than any laws of any nation.”
“Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’” he said.
The 6th Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision, concluding no federal judges should be making such a decision.
The pro-homosexual Marriage Equality organization called the ruling “out of step with the decisions of 40 other courts.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
what about us voters in California...who already had our choice against so called “gay” so called “marriage” ruled against?
The Supremes wont rule on this form what I understand...so the states CAN when they will.
this should be a good one.
I was required to post excerpt. Go to whole article for more info... it is suggested Supreme Court will be required to rule.
We need a federal marriage amendment.
It looks like the gay marriage issue is about to be back to where it started, and rightfully so. The homosexual activists have used judges to force / bully the states when the states voted against it. It’s about time we see this.
I hope someone has an answer because I wondered the same thing since Indiana’s was overturned recently. I believe it was also overturned in a way that excluded any further appeals but I could be wrong. Do we get a do-over?
as my mother used to say....just because you're in the minority doesn't mean your wrong....but it doesn't hurt to check your principles to make sure you can live a long time with your decision....
I cant see how a federal court can rule that some states have the right to define marriage..and not have that ruling apply to all states in the Union!
Gven the results of this recent election..that might be doable
APPEALS COURT: States can define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman
Actually it`s intrinsic to the root source of the word
“MARI-iage”, for the first recorded marriage occurred in the City of MARI in 5,000 BC.
“Mari (modern Tell Hariri, Syria) was an ancient Semitic city,[1] located 11 kilometers north-west of the modern town of Abu Kamal on the western bank of the Euphrates river” [wiki]
The word for marriage actually is intrinsically set in the Arabic derivatives from the Semitic root: found in Spanish,
- The word for “husband” in Spanish is MARI-do., MARIDO-
There you go- the name for husband cannot be separated from the root word for marriage. it`s been there for 7,000 years etched in the Mari clay tablets and is still there to this day.
Exactly! States either have the right to decide or they don’t. It can’t be both ways.
No. Let all the fudge packers and carpet munchers gravitate to designated states so heterosexuals can live in peace.
That would only be possible with a federal marriage amendment. Otherwise the Supremes will mandate it for all states.
Yeah we voted against it and one judge overturned the will of the people.
One would hope...that even in Obama’s America that the Law Be The Law
Mike. Federal Circuit Appeal Courts rulings are only binding within the geographical area they are located in. Thus, they often enter rulings different from other Appellate Courts. That’s when SCOTUS can step in. For example, I wouldn’t want lunatic ultra liberal 9th Circuit Court rulings telling me what to do, or not to do, would you?
The Ninth circuit is but a gaggle of miscreants
they might tell me what to do...but....
Kennedy “may” be into Federalism as well:
Federalism, “let the states decide” imho, would be the correct interpretation here.
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.