• 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

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many people who argued "It's the law" when courts struck these laws down are sticking with that argument today I wonder?
 
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.

To help me not have to read the entire ruling, and since it wasn't described in the article (which I did read), what citation from the Constitution did the court cite as the basis of the ruling?
 
To help me not have to read the entire ruling, and since it wasn't described in the article (which I did read), what citation from the Constitution did the court cite as the basis of the ruling?

mainly the will of the voters should be respected. I have to see which panel was on it (three judges)

I suggest that a request for a ruling en banc will happen first but maybe not

that would mean all of the judges on the circuit rehear the case. You can get a panel that decides in a way that most of the judges would disagree


ah it was Judge Sutton (very "conservative but he upheld Obamacare and he is one of the two real intellectual heavyweights on the Circuit), Judge Cook (another conservative also from Ohio) in the majority with Clinton Appointee Marta Craig Daughtery dissenting

I have argued before Cook and MCD and both are pretty good. Sutton is a superstar and has been mentioned as a USSC justice but he has lately been surpassed by another Bush appointee who is less flamboyant but equally bright

2-1 might mean en banc
 
How many people who argued "It's the law" when courts struck these laws down are sticking with that argument today I wonder?

It's the law, in those affected states right now, and I expect those states to continue the bans until SCOTUS rules otherwise. (which they will do)

I'm not sure what other argument you would have expected.

edit:

2-1 might mean en banc

Or this. En banc rules to overturn bans and we go back to your regularly scheduled programming.
 
mainly the will of the voters should be respected. I have to see which panel was on it (three judges)

I suggest that a request for a ruling en banc will happen first but maybe not

that would mean all of the judges on the circuit rehear the case. You can get a panel that decides in a way that most of the judges would disagree


ah it was Judge Sutton (very "conservative but he upheld Obamacare and he is one of the two real intellectual heavyweights on the Circuit), Judge Cook (another conservative also from Ohio) in the majority with Clinton Appointee Marta Craig Daughtery dissenting

I have argued before Cook and MCD and both are pretty good. Sutton is a superstar and has been mentioned as a USSC justice but he has lately been surpassed by another Bush appointee who is less flamboyant but equally bright

2-1 might mean en banc

Thank you.
 
I suggest that a request for a ruling en banc will happen first but maybe not

...snip...

2-1 might mean en banc

Could you explain that a bit please?
 
Scanning through the opinion, I tend to agree with the dissent(shocking, I know). The argument that the two judges made in upholding the law is basically that it is better done by he people and not the states. As Daughtery states, this is a fine civics speech, but does not address the actual constitutional issues that they where asked to look at. They instead kinda just sidestepped them. Admittedly, it is somewhat safe to sidestep them since the case is going to eventually be decided at a higher level, but that does not make their sidestep the right action to take.
 
They can only request it, but it is by no means the entire court will choose to re-hear it.

Tim-

That is not clearing it up for me. Might have to back up a step and dumb it down for me a little more. I give you permission to talk down to me.

Edit: got off my lazy ass and looked it up. It makes sense now.
 
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.

Yet I wouldn't be surprised if they found a way out of actually ruling on it. They seem to be good at that.
 
My jaw hit the desk.

Welp. That's what you get when an Appeals court is stacked with activist SoCos.
 
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.


The decision is in the link TG provided, and I just read it. Brilliant actually, and I concur, and said as much (Although not nearly as eloquently) over the last few years here. That rational basis is determined when legislative bodies enact them. This court agrees that one of the main tenants to being a judge is "not stir the pot" even when one feels as though a law or covenant with the people and their governments seems egregious. That, "who gets to decide" is a solemn principle in guiding judging, or more adequately, reserving the compulsion to legislate from the bench. That, if a law is so egregious that the citizenry will eventually get it right, or perhaps not, but regardless, it is their responsibility, and burden to govern themselves. There's a lot more to this decision and I recommend anyone interested in this issue read it.


Tim-
 
My jaw hit the desk.

Welp. That's what you get when an Appeals court is stacked with activist SoCos.

Kinda like mine did when the will of the people in MI was **** on by liberal Dbag judges. OH THE IRONY :lamo:monkey:2dance::rock:fueltofir
 
Oh hell yes. Bring on the Supreme Court. Now.
 
I'm just wondering when AGENTJ will come in here and concede that this "law" is now fact.. Of course it's an opinion like all the other laws in the land, but it will give me a smile in any event watching how he tries to reacquaint himself with a shred of consistency. ;)


Tim-
 
Oh hell yes. Bring on the Supreme Court. Now.

This judge pretty much just dared the USSC to legislate from the bench.. Double Dog dared them.. :)


Tim-
 
Wasn't this heavily expected? I imagine now we can finally have the Supreme Court rule and end the SSM discussion.
 
Kinda like mine did when the will of the people in MI was **** on by liberal Dbag judges. OH THE IRONY :lamo:monkey:2dance::rock:fueltofir

Since when does the "will of the people" define the rights, benefits and privileges of others? Thanks for endorsing mob tyranny.
 
Since when does the "will of the people" define the rights, benefits and privileges of others? Thanks for endorsing mob tyranny.


If they don't get to decide, then who does? A judge, two maybe three of them? Aren't "they" people too?


Tim-
 
Since when does the "will of the people" define the rights, benefits and privileges of others? Thanks for endorsing mob tyranny.

Since when is a couple liberal Dbags in black robes wiser the millions of MI voters?
 
One can appreciate the ruling which in effect says that courts should interpret law established by legislatures and not establish law from the bench.

That said, I'm incredibly tired of the whole debate. I don't give a rat's ass about who marries whom and how they want to do it. Get the government out of this mess and let people live their own lives as they see fit - want a church/religious marriage, find a church to marry you - want a civil marriage, visit a lawyer, create a contract, sign off on it and you're done.

Government is far too intrusive in the personal lives of citizens and this nonsense is a prime example of it.
 
If they don't get to decide, then who does?

The people most certainly don't get to to decide the rights of others. That's the very essence of mob tyranny.

A judge, two maybe three of them? Aren't "they" people too?

Tim-

Well, let's see what the role of the courts is shall we?

How Courts Work | Public Education

Often, courts are called on to uphold limitations on the government. They protect against abuses by all branches of government. They protect minorities of all types from the majority, and protect the rights of people who can't protect themselves. They also embody notions of equal treatment and fair play. The courts and the protections of the law are open to everybody.

Again, the role of the courts is not to uphold the "will of the people". It is to uphold what is lawful. Standing behind the courts when they make a ruling based on 'what people want' is nothing more than supporting mob tyranny.
 
Since when does the "will of the people" define the rights, benefits and privileges of others? Thanks for endorsing mob tyranny.

Were not these same men in black robes OK with slavery at one point in time??? You don't need to answer that.
 
Back
Top Bottom