• 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!

Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

matchlight said:
Of course I don't accept that state marriage laws violate either equal protection or due process by excluding partners of the same sex, any more than they violate those rights by excluding partners who are too closely related, multiple partners, or partners who are already married.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is questioning what you accept. The problem is you have no rational basis for denying same-sex couples marriage licenses. And the judge ignored that largely, and instead focused on how important the democratic process was, ignoring the fact the courts are supposed to be a check on that process. Similar reasoning in other cases is why 24 out of 25 decisions from this court appealed to SCOTUS have been reversed.
 
TurtleDude said:
there might be 6 federal judges in the country as smart as Sutton.
Click to expand...

That doesn't bode well for the legal system then, but as someone said, 25/26 6th circuit cases overturned by SCOTUS (adding another soon) is worst in the country.

Not a single reference to the constitution, that i've seen, in the majority ruling. This pathetic appeal to the masses (i guess let's make joe blow a federal judge!) that undermines the court's own authority ranks down there with scalia's dissent in lawrence v texas: "we ought not take part in the culture wars, many americans don't want homosexuals as neighbors"

Yeah that's some wonderful constitutionally sound reasoning
 
TurtleDude said:
on the 6th circuit, you could have had a 2-1 the other way if say Judge White (appointed by Bush to appease Democrats, she is Carl Levin's niece and a liberal) had been on the panel instead of Cook. This may well end up in front of the entire 6th Circuit

Donald, Stranch, White, Gilman, Clay, Moore, are all juges I believe would have voted with Judge Daughtrey on this matter.
Click to expand...

They're appealing directly to SCOTUS in order to make cert by the january deadline for this term. I think they've had enough of the 6th circuit
 
chromium said:
They're appealing directly to SCOTUS in order to make cert by the january deadline for this term. I think they've had enough of the 6th circuit
Click to expand...

Sutton is extremely well respected by Scalia (he clerked for Scalia) Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy. Some say Roberts silly splitting the baby was partially influenced by Sutton's opinion upholding Obama Care. Don't underestimate this when the Supremes hear the case. There are Very Few Circuit judges with the intellectual acuity of Judge Sutton: one being fellow 6th Circuit member Raymond Klethledge who is also a W appointee
 
Lakryte said:
They glossed over virtually all modern court decisions surrounding marriage and treatment of gay individuals and relied on the 11 word summary judgment of Baker v. Nelson.

Here is the decision (it starts on page 17)
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/6th-CA-marriage-ruling-11-6-14.pdf

The dissent starts on page 53, and basically answers your question about how poorly the court ruled.

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk
or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it
wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s
constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who
should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and
federalism.

She nailed it.
Click to expand...

Wow!!! Don't think I have ever read a dissent that sharp in it's tone. After reading the entire document now... I have to agree with her as well.

I look forward to reading the ruling when the SCOTUS gets this case.
 
TurtleDude said:
Sutton is extremely well respected by Scalia (he clerked for Scalia) Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy. Some say Roberts silly splitting the baby was partially influenced by Sutton's opinion upholding Obama Care. Don't underestimate this when the Supremes hear the case. There are Very Few Circuit judges with the intellectual acuity of Judge Sutton: one being fellow 6th Circuit member Raymond Klethledge who is also a W appointee
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting, that SCOTUS would actually take the case and *uphold* this ruling? If that were in the cards, they wouldn't have punted the other circuit appeals, all of which struck down SSM bans.

As far as punting now, Ginsberg's statement makes it pretty clear that won't happen
 
chromium said:
What are you suggesting, that SCOTUS would actually take the case and *uphold* this ruling? If that were in the cards, they wouldn't have punted the other circuit appeals, all of which struck down SSM bans.

As far as punting now, Ginsberg's statement makes it pretty clear that won't happen
Click to expand...

a conflict generally requires the Supremes to make a tough call. I expect another 5-4 decision

Roberts is big on "elections have consequences".
 
TurtleDude said:
a conflict generally requires the Supremes to make a tough call. I expect another 5-4 decision

Roberts is big on "elections have consequences".
Click to expand...

Probably will be 5-4 but i don't understand why the outcome would be diff from striking down DOMA, which Roberts did not vote for anyway. The gay rights rulings pretty much all line up with the judges' personal views, going back to 1980s at least.
 
chromium said:
Probably will be 5-4 but i don't understand why the outcome would be diff from striking down DOMA, which Roberts did not vote for anyway. The gay rights rulings pretty much all line up with the judges' personal views, going back to 1980s at least.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what happens and the reasoning
 
Gringo allstar said:
Democrat segregationist I believe.
Click to expand...

Yes, socially conservative Democratic segregationists that later virtually all became Republicans. The point was that segregationists used the same will of the people arguments you are using.
 
chromium said:
What are you suggesting, that SCOTUS would actually take the case and *uphold* this ruling? If that were in the cards, they wouldn't have punted the other circuit appeals, all of which struck down SSM bans.

As far as punting now, Ginsberg's statement makes it pretty clear that won't happen
Click to expand...

I think the SCOTUS has no choice but to take it up. If they don't the 4 states that fall under the sixth court gay marriage bans will be legal and Constitutional. Whereas other states that fall under different court of appeals that ruled differently, the bans would be illegal and unconstitutional. That is if the SCOTUS continues to refuse to hear gay marriage cases.
 
TurtleDude said:
It will be interesting to see what happens and the reasoning
Click to expand...

Indeed. One other thing to consider, if SCOTUS upheld this ruling, then all marriages in the dozen or so states that took place since they punted the other cases would suddenly become invalid. I certainly don't see Kennedy, the only justice on your list of Sutton backers who did vote against DOMA, taking that step. I mean, he wrote the majority opinion in lawrence v texas...

Although i'll grant you, i certainly do predict scalia and roberts will not give a damn about those couples and their rights.
 
chromium said:
Indeed. One other thing to consider, if SCOTUS upheld this ruling, then all marriages in the dozen or so states that took place since they punted the other cases would suddenly become invalid. I certainly don't see Kennedy, the only justice on your list of Sutton backers who did vote against DOMA, taking that step. I mean, he wrote the majority opinion in lawrence v texas...

Although i'll grant you, i certainly do predict scalia and roberts will not give a damn about those couples and their rights.
Click to expand...

in all fairness, that is not the focus or should be
 
TurtleDude said:
in all fairness, that is not the focus or should be
Click to expand...

edit: never mind, the willful neglect of the human toll from legal rulings is why i'm not going into the profession in the first place
 
Last edited:
Gringo allstar said:
Some people I guess, you know like slave holders and racist judges. Just remember some people also believe Elvis is still alive. Any ruling a judge will make will be upholding the will of somebody so the point is moot.
Click to expand...

You're right. Take any ridiculous idea, there's some loony toon out there that believes it.

So, next question:

Do you think segregation was supported by a majority of people in the south?
 
TurtleDude said:
Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

this now creates a conflict with other circuits and pretty much guarantees a supreme court case.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, which upheld same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, issued its decision three months after hearing same-sex marriage cases from all four states. In each of those states, federal judges had struck down same-sex marriage bans on constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...

I find it funny. It is a ruling most social conservatives cannot really get behind because the majority rejects the notion that same-sex couples cannot be as good as parents as opposite sex parents. In fact it does not really reject or take any position against same sex marriage, it simply argued a right for the people in states to define marriage through the political process as opposed through the courts. The only argument they could really drive was that polygamy is apparently the exact same thing as same-sex marriage and the judges could think of absolutely no differences between the two as far as Constitutional rationality. That part is rather embarrassing and intellectually weak. Do they really expect us to believe they were incapable of discerning any difference between polygamy and same-sex marriage?
 
CriticalThought said:
I find it funny. It is a ruling most social conservatives cannot really get behind because the majority rejects the notion that same-sex couples cannot be as good as parents as opposite sex parents. In fact it does not really reject or take any position against same sex marriage, it simply argued a right for the people in states to define marriage through the political process as opposed through the courts. The only argument they could really drive was that polygamy is apparently the exact same thing as same-sex marriage and the judges could think of absolutely no differences between the two as far as Constitutional rationality. That part is rather embarrassing and intellectually weak.
Click to expand...

while I support SSM I guess the issue is the conflict between majority rule and "rights". and some rights are obvious (and still get pissed upon by popular votes) and others are not
 
TurtleDude said:
while I support SSM I guess the issue is the conflict between majority rule and "rights". and some rights are obvious (and still get pissed upon by popular votes) and others are not
Click to expand...

It seems to me the majority wanted to force a circuit break. It is hard for me to accept they would wait until two days after the election and issue a ruling with such lackluster reasoning. I am the biggest advocate for same-sex marriage on this forum and I could have written a better argument for same-sex marriage bans. This wreaks of political maneuvering. They wanted to force SCOTUS to take this up sooner rather than later.
 
CriticalThought said:
It seems to me the majority wanted to force a circuit break. It is hard for me to accept they would wait until two days after the election and issue a ruling with such lackluster reasoning. I am the biggest advocate for same-sex marriage on this forum and I could have written a better argument for same-sex marriage bans. This wreaks of political maneuvering. They wanted to force SCOTUS to take this up sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

an interesting theory
 
TurtleDude said:
remind me your views on say popular gun control laws or progressive taxes like the death tax
Click to expand...

Using dead kids to ban guns:

Hatuey said:
There is absolutely no amount of legislation that could fix such type of mistake.

To use this as argument for gun control is disgusting.
Click to expand...

On firearm regulation:

Hatuey said:
I've grown to the belief that firearms and their use can be reasonably regulated while keeping in line with the constitution. Rights aren't unlimited. The various restrictions on the 1st amendment prove this.
Click to expand...

On doing away with the second amendment:

Hatuey said:
.... I'd tell America that we should sit down and talk about this like sensible adults. America can't do whatever she wants. You know, because America is not even 250 years old yet. She can't do as she please. First she bans guns, then what? She'll start smoking weed, hanging out with North Korea and as we all know, it's all down hill from there. No, America can't do whatever she wants so we'll just all have an intervention if she ever decides to just up and ban the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
First and second amendments? Why would they be repealed?
Click to expand...

Hatuey said:
I've addressed this phantom treaty over and over again. You have a right to bear arms. You don't have a right to go over to Rwanda and sell them to warlords. The treaty has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment and everything to do with international exports, which is something the federal government can regulate.
Click to expand...

I do believe you've given me a couple of likes because of my position on taxes ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Using dead kids to ban guns:



On firearm regulation:



On doing away with the second amendment:







I do believe you've given me a couple of likes because of my position on taxes ;)
Click to expand...

you are in favor of progressive taxes but I liked the posts because your reasoning was not the bash the rich nonsense. I had not recalled much if anything as to guns. and the states have some power to limit time and use if firearms

federal gun control is based on one of the biggest frauds ever imposed on the public by the federal government (and that includes all three branches
 
TurtleDude said:
an interesting theory
Click to expand...

Ask yourself whether you think someone as smart as Sutton is incapable of discerning differences between polygamy and same-sex marriage. Or maybe, he is savvy enough to recognize that SCOTUS is intentionally dragging its feet long enough on the issue by refusing to take up the issue so that same-sex marriage has been instituted in as many states as possible and become as accepted and commonplace as possible before they do. If he is a diehard federalist it would make sense he would want to force their hand as quickly as possible.
 
chromium said:
That doesn't bode well for the legal system then, but as someone said, 25/26 6th circuit cases overturned by SCOTUS (adding another soon) is worst in the country.

Not a single reference to the constitution, that i've seen, in the majority ruling. This pathetic appeal to the masses (i guess let's make joe blow a federal judge!) that undermines the court's own authority ranks down there with scalia's dissent in lawrence v texas: "we ought not take part in the culture wars, many americans don't want homosexuals as neighbors"

Yeah that's some wonderful constitutionally sound reasoning
Click to expand...

Having read your posts, who could doubt that your reasoning and knowledge of constitutional law have that dumbbell Scalia's beat, any day.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are in favor of progressive taxes but I liked the posts because your reasoning was not the bash the rich nonsense.
Click to expand...

I think I've been pretty evolving on my view of taxes. I don't necessarily see them as an infringement of rights as they serve a net benefit in theory. Low taxes mean there are entire urban communities who have no access to clean water, food, electricity and transportation. No access to these things means even deeper levels of poverty. Ensuring that taxes are high enough for these essentials is a net benefit that doesn't infringe on anything other than a person's belief in what they're owed. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that taxes should be so high that a person is not able to benefit from their work. :shrug:

I had not recalled much if anything as to guns. and the states have some power to limit time and use if firearms

federal gun control is based on one of the biggest frauds ever imposed on the public by the federal government (and that includes all three branches
Click to expand...

I just have a problem with the belief that a majority gets to outright restrict a benefit, privilege or right (such as marriage) using nothing more than religious belief. The same way I believe that even if the anti-gun side gained a majority, fear and aversion to guns would not be enough to place bans on the second amendment. That is mob tyranny any way you cut it.
 
TurtleDude said:
Appeals court upholds laws against gay marriage in Michigan, 3 other states

this now creates a conflict with other circuits and pretty much guarantees a supreme court case.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal, which upheld same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, issued its decision three months after hearing same-sex marriage cases from all four states. In each of those states, federal judges had struck down same-sex marriage bans on constitutional grounds.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Decisions issued by this court were reversed 25 out of the 26 times that they were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court since Oct., 2008, a higher frequency than any appeals court.

I predict that this ruling will suffer the same fate. SSM is coming nation-wide in the USA, wait and see.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being the same rights that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom