• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

4 states face gay marriage showdown in Cincinnati

DETROIT — Michigan's gay marriage ban is set for another legal showdown, only this one involves more players, more judges and likely more drama.On Wednesday, the historic civil rights case that centers on the right to marry heads to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, where three federal appeals judges will decide the fate of same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio. In each of these states, a judge has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, though all rulings have been appealed.
The Midwest states are part of an explosive litigation movement in which same-sex couples nationwide are fighting for the right to marry, or to have their existing marriages legally recognized. More than 75 lawsuits challenging gay marriage bans are pending in 32 states. Since December, courts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 29 cases, with those victories now on appeal.Michigan's case is in that category and ultimately could go before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not yet issued a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage.
10530883_10152637957293281_7478264705171001948_n.jpg
TOMORROW: Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to Hear Arguments in Six Marriage Cases from Four States | Human Rights Campaign

Good luck! (though they probably don't need it)
Hopefully this goes just like the other rulings and equal rights win again.
Knocking on SCOTUS's door, I wonder if it will be let in or they will simply decide the lower courts did a good enough job.
 
Maybe it is time our government(s) stop defining or acknowledging marriage.
 
Maybe it is time our government(s) stop defining or acknowledging marriage.

Won't happen. The majority of the Dems and Reps in congress don't want the government to get out of marriage. If they did, there would be SOME sign of a bill to support that move.
 
Maybe it is time our government(s) stop defining or acknowledging marriage.

government can never stop protecting contracts, I have no idea why anybody even tries to suggest something so asinine.
 
Won't happen. The majority of the Dems and Reps in congress don't want the government to get out of marriage. If they did, there would be SOME sign of a bill to support that move.

The government shouldn't get out of "marriage." It's a standardized set of legal rights and obligations that grease all kinds of economic and legal wheels and make what could be difficult in many cases far easier to deal with. Couples could get MOST of the same legal benefits through a series of contracts, drawn up by a lawyer or team of them, but they wouldn't be uniform, and creditors and hospitals and courts would have to look at each contract to see the terms. As is, there is a standard "contract" that people sign when they get married and it includes what might take a couple hundred legal pages of rights and obligations to outline, and everyone knows what those are, and only needs to look at the actual "contract" where there's been a pre-nuptial or other arrangement between the married couple that changes the standard marriage "contract."

It wouldn't do any good, except then there would be no gay "marriage" to recognize, and would do a lot of harm. So that's why most people aren't in favor of eliminating a government recognition of marriage.
 
The government shouldn't get out of "marriage." It's a standardized set of legal rights and obligations that grease all kinds of economic and legal wheels and make what could be difficult in many cases far easier to deal with. Couples could get MOST of the same legal benefits through a series of contracts, drawn up by a lawyer or team of them, but they wouldn't be uniform, and creditors and hospitals and courts would have to look at each contract to see the terms. As is, there is a standard "contract" that people sign when they get married and it includes what might take a couple hundred legal pages of rights and obligations to outline, and everyone knows what those are, and only needs to look at the actual "contract" where there's been a pre-nuptial or other arrangement between the married couple that changes the standard

marriage "contract."

It wouldn't do any good, except then there would be no gay "marriage" to recognize, and would do a lot of harm. So that's why most people aren't in favor of eliminating a government recognition of marriage.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights"......It has to do with taxes and aristocratic nonsense.
 
It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights"......It has to do with taxes and aristocratic nonsense.

So is that why you got married for those reasons? I don't think so. So why do you assume the majority do?
 
This is probably the case with the best chance of coming back with a negative verdict, though one of the Bush-appointed judges previously ruled in favor of Obamacare, so that is not certain either.
 
Monkey D Dragon!!!
 
government can never stop protecting contracts, I have no idea why anybody even tries to suggest something so asinine.

The federal government can indeed stop adding benefits onto state contracts. That is what is being proposed.
 
Maybe it is time our government(s) stop defining or acknowledging marriage.

I think the government should be forced to treat my wife as something more than a roommate. You just want to take your ball and go home.
 
The federal government can indeed stop adding benefits onto state contracts. That is what is being proposed.

Why? Marriage is an important part of a stable family unit, which is important to society. It should be encouraged.
 
Why? Marriage is an important part of a stable family unit, which is important to society. It should be encouraged.

So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.
 
So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.

Why? There is no need to "take away the federal element" here. The federal government has more programs than most states and are more likely (at least within most of our history) to actually protect our individual rights than the state governments are.
 
Why? There is no need to "take away the federal element" here. The federal government has more programs than most states and are more likely (at least within most of our history) to actually protect our individual rights than the state governments are.

Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.
 
It has absolutely nothing to do with "rights"......It has to do with taxes and aristocratic nonsense.

Marriage confers a number of legal rights involving healthcare, inheritance, children, employee benefits, and more.
 
Marriage confers a number of legal rights involving healthcare, inheritance, children, employee benefits, and more.

In context, not the sort of rights at discussion. In this discussion thus far, rights=federal constitutional rights. But everything listed there could indeed be handled by the individual states.
 
Eventually this will all have to go to the Supreme Court and they will have to settle this once and for all and when they do...good riddance.
 
Eventually this will all have to go to the Supreme Court and they will have to settle this once and for all and when they do...good riddance.

Knowing that court as we do, they'll be an incomplete gotcha attached. Room for wiggle. They will only "sorta" decide.
 
Once again, there is no federal marriage "right". That is something made up out of whole cloth by the SCOTUS. If the federal benefits weren't at stake, the whole rights argument put forth thus far goes away. The feds can benefit those who support others through tax relief just as they do through marriage now, without having to muggle around with the state contract of marriage.

No, why should the federal government not recognize legal relationships, which is why they are in marriage? They have programs that recognize spouses and rely on this recognition to determine how they deal with certain things, including SS, military benefits, and taxes.

The states don't have any right to have a definition of marriage that treats people differently in whether they can marry or who they can marry based on their religion, race, sex, or other characteristics that they cannot show further a legitimate state interest by basing restrictions on, whether the federal government recognizes marriages or not.
 
In context, not the sort of rights at discussion. In this discussion thus far, rights=federal constitutional rights. But everything listed there could indeed be handled by the individual states.

Those things aren't handled by individual states. But it isn't just things that can be handled by individual states either. The federal government recognizes spouses for federal employees and for military benefits, just as they do other legal family of at least some people.
 
Knowing that court as we do, they'll be an incomplete gotcha attached. Room for wiggle. They will only "sorta" decide.

Unfortunately you are probably right.
 
In context, not the sort of rights at discussion. In this discussion thus far, rights=federal constitutional rights. But everything listed there could indeed be handled by the individual states.

Lots of them ARE handled by the states. And states determine the requirements for marriage and divorce. The federal role you're complaining about is its legitimate role protecting Constitutional rights, and to ensure that the benefits and obligations of marriage are available to couples on a non-discriminatory basis.

The only problem with the Federal role that I can see is the Federal courts are requiring states to recognize SSM. I understand you might not agree with some Courts' decisions about that, but it simply IS a legitimate function of the Federal courts to rule on such matters. I'm assuming you recognize the authority of the courts to strike down miscegenation laws that prohibited some marriages of straight couples? I hope so, and if you do, you recognize the Federal courts have a role in marriage, you just don't agree with their decisions. That's different than claiming they have no role.
 
So, let the individual states encourage it the way that makes sense for them. Take away the federal element.

They already can do this. It just has to be in accordance with the constitution.
 
I had a meeting down town Cincinnati with some attorneys on a matter and we parked under Fountain Square. The square was packed with gay rights advocates-the Federal Courthouse is one block east of Fountain Square. Oral Arguments normally are limited to 15 minutes a side but apparently this consolidated argument went north of three hours. The local news is carrying extended coverage-from gay couples and their advocates such as well known civil rights advocate/attorney Alphonse Gehardstein (one of the best trial attorneys in the area) to representatives of the various state governments who argued against the gay marriage position.

COOK
SUTTON
DAUGHTREY are the Judges

Cook and Sutton are Bush appointees while Martha Craig Daughtery is a Clinton appointee. Sutton is widely regarded as one of the two brightest judges on the Sixth Circuit and until he voted to uphold Obama Care he was a leading candidate for the USSC the next time a GOP president takes office. Another Michigan appointee, Raymond Kethledge has surpassed judge Sutton in some circles as the leading light on the court but Sutton is brilliant and is hard to pigeonhole. Cook is a more reliable GOP vote


Martha Craig Daughtrey is a pretty solid judge who is in her early 70s/ One expects she would vote in favor to sustain the district courts' decisions striking down gay marriage bans


Sutton has a well known reputation for lively engagement of counsel during oral arguments but he is unfailingly polite and not known for berating counsel. He sometimes goes off on a tangent he finds intellectually intriguing. Cook is a bit more passive and tends to ask straightforward questions when needed. I have argued before Cook (2X) and Daughtrey (3X). All I remember from Daughtrey was calling out opposing counsel when he misrepresented the holding of one of her prior decisions
 
Back
Top Bottom