6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Sil and bripat stumble around. The constitution, the law, and the majority are against them, period.

Well you should just type that up as your amicus brief against SUTTON's Opinion and submit it to the US Supreme Court. Case closed, verdict in favor of JakeStarkey...

I've never heard a more robust and comprehensive legal argument in my life. Should be a shoe-in. You did notice that the points were Sutton's...not mine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is a far better as an amicus brief in defense than anything you have ever posted about marriage equality on the board.

 

[Syriusly]

In answer to the poll, of course not.

Marriage is not the business of government, local or national.

If its between consenting adults and harms no one, MYOB.

So why do those same consenting adults suddenly need a piece of paper from government to be legitimate?

Why hasnt this thread been merged with the other on the same topic?

Unfortunately, because of issues like child custody, child support and inheritance, government will always be involved in marriage. Of course, all these issues stem from the facts of reproduction, so it's difficult to understand why it should have anything to do with gays whatsoever.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil and bripat stumble around. The constitution, the law, and the majority are against them, period.

Well you should just type that up as your amicus brief against SUTTON's Opinion and submit it to the US Supreme Court. Case closed, verdict in favor of JakeStarkey...\

Considering that the Supreme Court will be considering the arguments from 3 Appellate courts and 13 plus Federal Courts which have ruled that laws preventing same gender marriage violate the Constitution.....I don't think that they need Jake's submission too.....

 

[Syriusly]

Correct.

And so long as the states don't seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in.

According to Baker, 1971, which has yet to be overturned by SCOTUS, they do not have access to marriage in the states that defined them and polygamists and incest out of participation...

As you are aware by now, after reading Sutton's citation of Baker, and the rules of the federal appeals up through SCOTUS, no lower court may overturn any ruling of the SCOTUS. Only SCOTUS can do that. And they haven't. So gay marriage is still illegal in the various states being told by lower courts that it is legal. One case appealed directly in an emergency to a Justice of the US Supreme Court and sweeping stays would go across all those states in the interim. And I suggest this happens quickly, for a number of reasons...

They could cite Judge Sutton's reasoning. AGs of Utah? Idaho? Kansas? Oklahoma? Got a minute? For that matter, a registered voter in a state with initiative law like California that trumps legislative law, could do an emergency petition, with standing I might add, for violation of their civil right for their vote to count...in the interim...

Hey Jake {below} vv You realize that bripat and I aren't Judge Sutton, right? Might want to read his review and comment instead on how you think HE is "stumbling around"...

Everytime I see Silhouette provide her usual astute legal reasoning, I am more confident that the Supreme Court will find in favor of same gender marriage.

Nothing in her post is accurate.

 

[Syriusly]

Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit may have seen these trends. ]

Or Judge Sutton may be controlled by his Martian overlords.....

Either case is possible.

 

[Silhouette]

Considering that the Supreme Court will be considering the arguments from 3 Appellate courts and 13 plus Federal Courts which have ruled that laws preventing same gender marriage violate the Constitution.....I don't think that they need Jake's submission too.....

So you think that the size of the judicial crowd clamoring is more important than the substance of their individual arguments? If it comes down to substance, Judge Sutton of the 6th wins. You should hope it rests instead on the din of the illogical hip-shooters..

 

[Syriusly]

Considering that the Supreme Court will be considering the arguments from 3 Appellate courts and 13 plus Federal Courts which have ruled that laws preventing same gender marriage violate the Constitution.....I don't think that they need Jake's submission too.....

So you think that the size of the judicial crowd clamoring is more important than the substance of their individual arguments? If it comes down to substance, Judge Sutton of the 6th wins. You should hope it rests instead on the din of the illogical hip-shooters..

LOL- I actually think that the Supreme Court will consider the substance of all arguments- and while I agree with the substance of the rulings that have ruled for marriage equality, I don't presume to know how the Supreme Court will rule.

But considering your near perfect failure record of predictions, your usual keen analysis makes me more hopeful.

 

[The Rabbi]

In answer to the poll, of course not.

Marriage is not the business of government, local or national.

If its between consenting adults and harms no one, MYOB.

So why do those same consenting adults suddenly need a piece of paper from government to be legitimate?

Why hasnt this thread been merged with the other on the same topic?

Unfortunately, because of issues like child custody, child support and inheritance, government will always be involved in marriage. Of course, all these issues stem from the facts of reproduction, so it's difficult to understand why it should have anything to do with gays whatsoever.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The substance of the pro marriage equality courts is far more coherent and consistent with Windsor than the nonsense the 6th and Sil are handing out.

 

[Silhouette]

LOL- I actually think that the Supreme Court will consider the substance of all arguments- and while I agree with the substance of the rulings that have ruled for marriage equality, I don't presume to know how the Supreme Court will rule.

But considering your near perfect failure record of predictions, your usual keen analysis makes me more hopeful.

Near perfect isn't going to cut it. You will have to make sure I fail 100% of the time. Because Sutton's Opinion lines up quite nicely with what I've been saying all along. Also, he came up with several other excellent points that never occured to me.

See, right now there are four states where gay marriage, along with polygamy and others are excluded by law. And that creates a problem where other states who don't want gay marriage are now FORCED to allow it by federal entities. Sutton's Opinion says, accurately, that the lower federal courts that he is a part of do not have and never did have the authority to overrule Baker, 1971. So any marriages shoved on those states illegally should be very careful. If you are a gay person wanting to be married, I strongly suggest moving to a state who has chosen itself to allow it. Otherwise, you are living in a fool's paradise..

 

[Silhouette]

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

So-called "gay marriage" would be a condition where a state HAD to incentivize [against its will] a situation where children in that marriage would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time.

You'll notice I said "children in that marriage". Because marriage isn't just about two people. There are others involved...and that's how any state looks at it.

 

[bripat9643]

The substance of the pro marriage equality courts is far more coherent and consistent with Windsor than the nonsense the 6th and Sil are handing out.

Horseshit. The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

 

[Silhouette]

The substance of the pro marriage equality courts is far more coherent and consistent with Windsor than the nonsense the 6th and Sil are handing out.

Horseshit. The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

So is "marriage rights". It would be like saying "driving rights" where people who do not qualify still have a "right" to drive. And if they didn't, because they were say, blind, it would be like a group organizing to say that the word "driving" needed to be redacted to mean not just safe driving using the rules of the road, but also plowing into pedestrians, other cars, buildings and ditches because everyone has a "right" to drive.

How does gay marriage harm people? It harms children by depriving them of one of their blood parents 100% of the time. A child may be deprived of a parent outside of marriage, or by death, divorce etc., but five wrongs don't make a right. A state doesn't want to incentivize or encourage that situation where this wrong will occur 100% of the time. So gay marriage hurts children and it hurts the larger community of a state concerned about them.

That is the "car wreck" that will occur by calling a privelege "a right"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

 

[Silhouette]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

If gay marriage was such a sure thing, why don't you put it to state votes?

 

[bripat9643]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

Yeah, right, you commie propaganda posting nitwit.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no difference in discrimination based on race and discrimination based on gender.

From Sutton's Opinion: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court’s decision four years earlier in
Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which invalidated Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages, did not change this conclusion. “n commonsense and in a constitutional sense,” the state court explained, “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Baker
, 191 N.W.2d at 187...

...In trying to figure out the original meaning of a provision, it is fair to say, the line between interpretation and evolution blurs from time to time. That is an occupational hazard for judges when it comes to old or generally worded provisions. Yet that knotty problem does not confront us. Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment is old; the people ratified it in 1868. And yes, it is generally worded; it says: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Nobody in this case, however, argues that the people who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment understood it to require the States to change the definition of marriage. .. ..From the founding of the Republic to 2003, every State defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, meaning that the Fourteenth Amendment permits, though it does not require, States to define marriage in that way...

..How can we say that the voters acted irrationally for sticking with the seen benefits of thousands of years of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage in the face of one year of experience with a new definition of marriage? A State still assessing how this has worked, whether in 2004 or 2014, is not showing irrationality, just a sense of stability and an interest in seeing how the new definition has worked elsewhere. Even today, the only thing anyone knows for sure about the long-term impact of redefining marriage is that they do not know. A Burkean sense of caution does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, least of all when measured by a timeline less than a dozen years long and when assessed by a system of government designed to foster step-by-step, not sudden winner-take-all, innovations to policy problems....

 

[Silhouette]

Seawytch, you're group is going to come up against this rationale in the final Hearing:

***********
"Any other reading of
Windsor
would require us to subtract key passages from the opinion and add an inverted holding. The Court noted that New York “without doubt” had the power under its traditional authority over marriage to extend the definition of marriage to include gay couples and that Congress had no power to enact “unusual” legislation that interfered with the States’ long-held authority to define marriage.
Windsor
, 133 S. Ct. at 2692–93.
A decision premised on heightened scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment that redefined marriage nationally to include same-sex couples not only would divest the States of their traditional authority over this issue, but it also would authorize Congress to do something no one would have thought possible a few years ago—to use its Section 5 enforcement powers to add new definitions and extensions of marriage rights in the years ahead....

...Why, it is worth asking, the sudden change in public opinion? If there is one thing that seems to challenge hearts and minds, even souls, on this issue, it is the transition from the abstract to the concrete. If twenty-five percent of the population knew someone who was openly gay in 1985, and seventy-five percent knew the same in 2000, Klarman, supra, at 197, it is fair to wonder how few individuals still have not been forced to think about the matter through the lens of a gay friend or family member. That would be a discrete and insular minority...

...
the marriage laws do not violate the Constitution. A principled jurisprudence of constitutional evolution turns on evolution in
society’s values, not evolution in judges’ values. Freed of federal-court intervention, thirty-one States would continue to define marriage the old-fashioned way. Lawrence, by contrast, dealt with a situation in which just thirteen States continued to prohibit sodomy, and even then most of those laws had fallen into desuetude, rarely being enforced at all. On this record, what right do we have to say that societal values, as opposed to judicial values, have evolved toward agreement in favor of same-sex marriage?

**********

Sutton's point was that if so many people know a family member or friend who is gay...increasing from 25% in 1985 to 75% today.. (coming out vs trend?), why can't their judgment as such a majority now be trusted in state by state regulating on the topic of so-called gay marriage? His argument is that if a majority of people approve of gay marriage, why is the LGBT community trying to keep it off the ballots in states?

He notes an alarming case here:

***********

"In other States, the people seemed primed to do the same but for now have opted to take a wait-and-see approach of their own as federal litigation proceeds. See, e.g., Wesley Lowery, Same-Sex Marriage Is Gaining Momentum, but Some Advocates Don’t Want It on the Ballot in Ohio, Wash. Post (June 14, 2014), Same-sex marriage is gaining momentum but some advocates don t want it on the ballot in Ohio - The Washington Post (explaining that Ohio same-sex marriage advocates opted not to place the question on the 2014 state ballot despite collecting nearly twice the number of required signatures). What the Court recently said about another statewide initiative that people care passionately about applies with equal vigor here: “Deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor. But that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters’ reach. Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”

 

[Syriusly]

In answer to the poll, of course not.

Marriage is not the business of government, local or national.

If its between consenting adults and harms no one, MYOB.

So why do those same consenting adults suddenly need a piece of paper from government to be legitimate?

Why hasnt this thread been merged with the other on the same topic?

Unfortunately, because of issues like child custody, child support and inheritance, government will always be involved in marriage. Of course, all these issues stem from the facts of reproduction, so it's difficult to understand why it should have anything to do with gays whatsoever.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor