Appeals court upholds bans on same-sex marriage in four states


A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld same-sex marriage bans in four states Thursday afternoon, creating a split among the nation’s appeals courts that almost surely means the Supreme Court must take up the issue of whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The panel ruled 2 to 1 that while gay marriage is almost inevitable, in the words of U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, it should be settled through the democratic process and not the judiciary. The decision overturned rulings in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, and makes the 6th Circuit the first appeals court to uphold state bans since the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The Supreme Court began its term last month by declining to hear appeals of decisions that had struck down same-sex marriage bans, greatly expanding the number of states in which gays may marry.




The 6th Circuit Appeals Court just changed the tide of rulings. We now have an official split. Maybe now SCOTUS will take up the issue and rule.

“When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers,” Sutton wrote, adding that it’s better to have change “in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”


This is interesting. And, assuming something like this did make it to the Supreme Court, this is where the make up of the justices becomes so important. Obviously, this could change in time under a Republican administration. Different judges see this issue differently.


It’d get up there before any Republican administration would be in power.

Also, this is a great opinion. Setting aside any personal views about gay marriage, from a legal perspective, as I’m reading this right now at home, it’s 100% on point.

EDIT: And here, to me, is the killing blow that really gets at the issue:

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?






The Judge apparently forgets that the role of the courts is to uphold what is lawful and strike down what is unlawful.The 6th Circuit has stepped through the looking glass and decided that the Constitution is secondary to the will of the mob but this was expected and will undoubtedly be tossed by the Supreme Court.


Praise The Lord.


Gonna be interesting. My prediction: 5 - 4 in favor of gay marriage.

Had an interesting conversation today with a new woman at work. She told me that she was married and had three kids. I just assumed that her spouse was a man. Later in the day, much to my surprise, I discovered that she is married to another woman. Now, I consider myself to be pretty open minded about most things. Yes, even gay marriage. But even I naturally assumed that by “marriage,” she was referring to traditional one-man one-woman marriage. No matter how the court eventually rules, it’s going to be generations before same sex marriage is considered “normal” by most people - even in secular society.


I’m not sure where you are getting this from. Sounds like they are saying it, the definition of Marriage, is something that individual States should regulate.


When the law says okay to so-called “same-sex marriage” you say obey the law. But you weren’t saying to obey the law when the laws everywhere were saying no to SSM. What Catholics are saying is that the state should respect natural law of marriage which is revealed in the design of the bodies of men and women from birth. Read Pope St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.


No, I say strike down unconstitutional law. it is not unconstitutional for the State to legalize gay marriage; in fact it is Constitutionally obligatory. Catholics may want what they want but this country isn’t governed by the Catechism or the Theology of the Body for that matter.


What is your goal on this website if you have no interest in trying to learn about the Catholic perspective? You realize that you are going to hear the Catholic perspective by being on here, right?


It’s unlawful for a judge to redefine marriage without the will of the people.

Marriage can not exist in a gay relationship.

I agree that gay relationships are deep loving relationships which can last a life time and they need legal rights.

But that is not what a marriage is. They can not biologically make a marriage.



On that we strongly disagree. A judge is not bound by the tyranny of the mob.


You’ve been telling faithful Catholics that we are wrong and refusing to listen to any of us since you joined this website in 2009. But you are never going to get us to agree with redefining marriage or abortion or any other thing which the Church says is wrong. So I don’t see the point of what you are trying to do unless you are here just to vent your anger at Catholics.



Not sure about the gay relationships lasting a life time too often, but I agree that in our secular society, some sort of gay legal or civil union option should definitely be available. Just not marriage. If gays are in the Church, that is when the Catholic message kicks in as far as I am concerned (or in evangelization).


It is also not governed by your opinion of what is or isn’t Constitutional. :shrug:


There’s time. I don’t see this fight going away. And there is actually a pretty good chance that different Supreme Courts will look at this differently.


I fully concur. :thumbsup:

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