HICAGO (AP) — Federal appeals judges bristled Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.
As the legal skirmish over same-sex marriage shifted to the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, more than 200 people lined up hoping to get a spot in the hearing room.
Attorneys general in both states are trying to reinstate bans that were ruled unconstitutional in June. The outcome of the case also could directly affect hundreds of couples who were married after federal judges overturned the bans but before their rulings were put on hold pending appeal.
Based upon the judge’s attitude I would imagine that he is going to rule against the “gay marriage” bans. I hope and pray that he does not rule against them. I really do not wish to see “gay marriage” legal in my state. I feel that it will be legal someday soon though and I will weep when that happens. I am thoroughly sickened by the government endorsing grave immorality such as “gay marriage” and abortion which is in reality the murder of an unborn child.
I think the chief justice was arguing the plaintiffs case. Did her own research and decided to argue it. IMHO she brought up a lot of stuff that could have been argued against but were so out in left field that the attorneys weren’t ready to argue against the points.
For example, her argument: “Shouldn’t we allow gay marriage because so many kids are born out of wedlock to gay couples and put up for adoption?” Really now, just how many kids are born out of wedlock to gay couples who then put them up for adoption? My guess would be few to none.
I doubt the Supreme Court will even hear the case. They have a habit of kicking things back down to the lower courts which means this issue will be in limbo for many years to come. The SC has a habit of ruling in favor of the states when it is state vs federal issue. That will change if Obama can stack more liberal appointees on the SC.
This is the same court that ruled against Indiana’s defunding of Planned Parenthood, so I was not hopeful on this issue either. In order to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, there almost has to be a contrary decision from another Appeals Court. As long as all the Appeals Courts continue to rule against a state’s defense of traditional marriage, SCOTUS will be very reluctant to take a state’s appeal. At least Indiana and Wisconsin had the guts to defend their laws in court, unlike the states like California that refused to acknowledge the clear will of their own citizens.
The court has already ruled on these things and you cannot compare those things to “gay marriage”. There is absolutely nothing immoral about women voting or civil rights. “Gay marriage” on the other hand is gravely immoral. It is contradictory to Natural Law.
It took a Constitutional Amendment for women to get the right to vote. Prior to that SCOTUS ruled on a number of occassions that it was not unconstitutional to ban women from voting.
Keep telling yourself that, but you might want to stock up on kleenex before then. SCOTUS bucked the idea of gay marriage as a constitional right during the Prop 8 orals, they aren’t likely to change their mind this soon. Even Ginsberg wasn’t up for it. That’s saying something.
I continue to be astonished when judges (and others) seem unable to distinguish any difference between marriage of sexually complementary persons—that is, man and woman—and unions of same sex partners, which can never be marital. Why do they think that there are men and women? Is is just an accident of nature? Do they really think that non-marital marriage is possible?
It would require the court to answer the broad question, “What is marriage?” and the court ducks those questions whenever possible. They did the same thing in Roe v Wade when there was plenty of scientific evidence to establish when life begins. In the recent Hobby Lobby case, they seemed relieved that they could base their narrow decision on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act without having to go to the deeper concerns of the First Amendment. The seeming cowardice frustrates a lot of people, including me. If a marriage case does make it to the Supreme Court, probably the best we can hope for is a decision that the defintion of marriage is a state matter.
On the other hand, broad decisions can be the worst decisions. One tragic example is the Dred Scott decision, where Chief Justice Roger Taney went way beyond the specific issue at hand and ruled that congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. It made civil war the only possible solution.
Another irony of today is that the Supreme Court makes its decisions mosty by political compromises rather than just interpreting the law, while the elected politicians of Congress have forgotten how to debate and compromise.