[7th Circ.] Court Rules Against Gay Marriage Bans in 2 States

A U.S. appeals court ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana violate the U.S. Constitution, in another in a series of courtroom wins for gay-marriage advocates.

The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago criticized the justifications both states gave for the bans, several times singling out the argument that marriage between a man and a woman is tradition. There are, the court noted, good and bad traditions.

“Bad traditions that are historical realities such as cannibalism, foot-binding, and suttee, and traditions that from a public-policy standpoint are neither good nor bad — such as trick-or-treating on Halloween,” it said. “Tradition per se therefore cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination-regardless of the age of the tradition.”

Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in some other states continue to make their way through the courts. Since last year, the vast majority of federal rulings have declared same-sex marriages bans unconstitutional.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B Van Hollen said he would appeal Thursday’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin and Indiana cases shifted to Chicago after attorneys general in the states appealed separate lower court rulings in June that tossed the bans. The 7th Circuit stayed those rulings pending its own decision on the cases, which were considered simultaneously.


Decision here:

What an outrageous, monstrous comparison, to compare marriage to cannibalism! That we have such idiocy coming from a US Circuit Court is mind-boggling.

OTOH, one could easily, and perhaps rightly infer the mention to cannibalism as a thinly veiled reference to Christians who believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, particularly the Catholic Church. :mad:


I agree it is outrageous and monstrous.
OTOH, as a longtime lurker here, Gay marriage is seemingly daily compared to much much worse…i.e. murder, satantic black mass, abomination, heinous, etc…

If we could all remain calm and respectful that would be greatly appreciated in discussion forums.

Agreed. These terms do not apply to same gender “marriage”.

While I oppose same-gender “marriage”, I do not oppose any pairing of adults receiving the same kinds of government benefits as married couples, meaning, tax deductions, social security benefits, etc.

I also believe that communions that believe in the sanctity of the sacrament/rite of marriage, should no longer obligate themselves or couples to notification of governments when they perform weddings. As government changes the definition of marriage, it means our use of the term is not the same thing.


Amen to that Judge! :thumbsup:

Yes. Marriage is akin to cannibalism. :rolleyes:


So the judges hold that a tradition—marriage between man and woman—going back to the dawn of civilization, is nothing more than the equivalent of a tradition of cannibalism or going trick or treating on Halloween?

Is it possible that every civilization from the dawn of civilization to now, knew something that these judges dont? That there are men and women for a reason, and the reason is sexual complementarity, family formation, and the continuance of civilization? That marriage binds husband and wives, binds children to their mothers and fathers and forms the nucleus of the structure of any society?

No, of course they don’t know that. That’s just anthropology. That’s just the nature of mankind. They are more enlightened. They know that man + woman is exactly equal to man + man. Unreason rules the day.

Yet again, the little tinhorn “gods” have spoken from on high to the little people! :thumbsup:

I hope everyone is starting to realize that the people arguing in favor of these marriage bans are just plain incompetent. It has nothing to do with activist judges or partisan courts. Even the conservative judges are mocking these pathetic arguments against marriage equality. And yet, defeat after defeat, these folks all essentially regurgitate the same losing arguments. Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

What I find most amusing is that, in each of these rulings, the judges basically explain why the marriage ban supporters lost. If these losers had any brains, they would seriously study the decisions and adjust their strategies accordingly in order overcome the obstacles that led to previous failures. But no, these geniuses never even try to learn from their mistakes. Maybe they’ve already given up entirely and are just going through the motions so they can collect their paychecks afterward.

I could come up with a better strategy to defend these marriage bans in my sleep. I don’t know why we even bother wasting taxpayer money on this stupidity anymore. Until we get some smarter people on the front lines of this debate, any effort to refocus marriage around biological children will merely be an exercise in futility.

At this point, all the time, energy, and resources wasted in this fight would be better off redirected toward more productive pursuits.

All right, let’s hear the winning argument.

So the Constitution means whatever a judge says it means at that time? No one ever voted to make gay marriage unconstitutional. No one who voted for the Equal Protection Clause ever thought it meant that. If the Constitution evolves to mean whatever a particular judge thinks it means at that time then it has no meaning at all. Men and women in black robes staring up at the ceiling wondering if gay marriage or the death penalty or whatever is unconstitutional yet. That’s not law, it’s social engineering from the bench. That should concern all of us. One day the tides of society may not be running in a direction we like too much.

And just for the record we have mechanisms to keep up with the evolving society. They are called legislatures. If the people want gay marriage all they have to do is persuade a majority of the people to agree with them and pass a law. Simple as that.

Yes, exactly so. The authors of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment, would all be equally astonished to discover that their writings authorized same sex marriage. “Wait a minute! Where do you find that in what we wrote?” they might object. Actually, if they thought that any of their writings, including the 14th Amendment, were intended to authorize same sex marriage, they would have amended their words to exclude it. At the very least, the public debate over their passage would have been considerably more heated.

The Constitution has not been amended to authorize same sex marriage, so where do the judges find it? Why, they find it in their own interpretation of words written by others who would have by no means found any such authorization.

What it means is that we have become not a nation of laws, but a nation of judges, who make law to suit their current predispositions.

That is absolutely correct. The Constitution is completely silent on the question of gay marriage. It doesn’t enshrine it as a right and neither does it proscribe it. Any state legislature in the country is free to allow or deny gay marriage. You can even enshrine it as a Constitutional right if you want following the procedures set out in the Constitution.

Your single concept of it is in that it has been deemed outdated by majority consensus, rather like Human Sacrifice (Judges 11:29-40, Wisdom 3:5-7) is a good Biblical tradition too, but rather conveniently nobody seems to want to practice that anymore.

Some good traditions are worth hanging on to (1 Thessalonians 5:21), but the rest have a retirement age.

And what was the Magesteriums job again when it was using vague references to cleaving unto ones wife as justification for an absolute ban on all forms of artificial contraception?

Catholics often cry for freedom of religion, well Episcopalians thing their freedom of religion has been violated by not being allowed to conduct gay marriages, just as Atheists feel pro-traditional marriage supporters have violated their right to freedom ***from ***religion.

I could go deeper into this, but it deserves a separate thread, that and there’s not an awful lot of point discussing it on a Catholic forum.

Nothing is stopping these groups from conducting ceremonies that claim to unite two men, two women, a woman and a building, or any other combination they see fit. What we’re fighting against is the idea that we should have to recognize these as marriages, in violation of what we understand marriage to be. We’re trying to maintain the only definition that everyone has agreed upon throughout history - male and female. If a 13-year-old Jewish boy is unable to vote, drive, or buy alcohol, does that mean the Bar Mitzvah doesn’t actually make him an adult? Is it discriminatory that the law doesn’t provide for these things?

I’d agree in that those who share the Catholic viewpoint are offering losing arguments.

A thread back in July started with a judge’s coment that mariage ban arguments are “not those of serious people.”


The judge tore apart the “procreation” argument and said that even if it’s true that the state has an interest in procreation, it’s not furthered by a marriage ban. Of course other posters said that that’s not the only argument.

I understand the Catholic view on marriage, but I’m having trouble thinking of arguments that would actually work in a court of law.

But Catholics are stopping them having inheritance rights to each others property, taking out joint mortgages, custodial rights, pre-nuptual protections, next-of-kin hospital visitation rights amongst many other things; purely because they don’t want to have to “aknowledge” it.

I’m sure fundamentalists don’t want to “aknowledge” the legitimacy of Catholics to operate as an organization and some would quite happily chase you underground if not prosecute you. We as a society don’t let them though because that’s called discrimination.

I think Catholics would do well to remember that they too are a minority, there may be many more of you than homosexuals but bear in mind it only takes one big fish in a bad mood to make life hell for the little fish.

Joint mortgages: Marriage not a requirement. Joint loans are issued all the time to unmarried persons. Custodial rights: Marriage is not required. Any halfway competent lawyer can sort that out. “Pre-nuptual” protections: Nonsensical, as they only arise when a marriage is possible, and a huge number of marriages exist without such agreements in place at all. Next-of-kin: Hospitals follow the patient’s wishes regarding visitation and medical decision rights. They don’t care if the person is related or not. Marriage is not required.

Tax breaks? Inheritance rights? Those are meant for the support of children, as the law assumes that a married man and woman will eventually have children as the natural result of a sexual relationship - something impossible for two men or two women.

I’d like to see a single, actual “hardship” that cannot be resolved through means other than the redefinition of marriage.

There is just and unjust discrimination. Just discrimination would include not redefining the basis of society to accommodate the selfish desires of two men or two women to have social approbation for their paraphilia when there is no benefit to society. Unjust discrimination was blocking the union of a white man (or woman) with a woman (or man) of another race, as children would still result and be provided a stable environment with both male and female parents.

Threats are not debate. They’re a means of shutting down debate when one has no answer.

Then there is the tradition from 1 Kings 11:3. I’ll be all right. I just feel a little sorry for the 699 guys who are going to miss out. :smiley:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.