". . . if the fundamental right to marriage is based on 'the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice,' as they contend, then that liberty would also extend to individuals seeking state recognition of other types of relationships that States currently restrict, such as polygamous or incestuous relationships."UPDATE 3/24/15: 'Husband' Impregnates Both 'Married' Lesbian Wives (Polyamory)
-- Judge Paul Niemeyer, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
UPDATE 1/18/15: Teen Girl to Marry Father in New Jersey—Adult Incest is Legal
For background, read Supreme Court's New Morality Means Justice for Polygamy and also read Polygamy OKd by Federal Judge = 'Marriage' Anarchy
For the "big picture," read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman. However, there are lone appellate judges who say that there is NO constitutional protection for "gay marriage."
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Judge Says Incest OK; It's the New Gay
Pedophiles Win in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court
-- From "Appeals panel strikes down Virginia gay marriage ban" by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 7/29/14
The [4th] circuit court has jurisdiction over Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. The panel's decision will not take effect until at least Aug. 18 while circuit clerks defending the state's ban decide whether to appeal to the full appellate court or the Supreme Court.
"I do strongly disagree with the assertion that same-sex marriage is subject to the same constitutional protections as the traditional right to marry," Niemeyer said. "I would reverse the district court's judgment and defer to Virginia's political choice in defining marriage as only between one man and one woman."
The Virginia case, which involves two couples seeking to marry in the state and two couples seeking to have their marriages from other states recognized, now gives the Supreme Court a choice. It can hear the Utah or Oklahoma cases from the 10th Circuit, wait for Virginia's to be appealed, or defer action even longer for other gay marriage cases scheduled for appellate hearings in August, September and beyond.
Because Virginia's new Democratic attorney general, Mark Herring, had refused to defend the state's gay marriage ban, that task was left to circuit court clerks from two counties. Brian Babione, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented one of the clerks, said they were considering their options.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Virginia Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down" by Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News Service 7/29/14
Virginia's laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry or have their marriages recognized are "the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance," the 4th Circuit ruled.
"Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life," the majority opinion states. "It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance."
In a bitter dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer argued that same-sex marriage would lead to recognition of "polygamous or incestuous relationships."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Dissenting judge raises polygamy question" by Doug Clark, News & Record (Greensboro, NC) 7/29/14
. . . there's no clamor for allowing "incestuous" marriage. But "marriage" doesn't require procreation or even a sexual relationship. If it's viewed as a legal arrangement that bestows certain benefits, why should the law bar, say, two elderly sisters from claiming those benefits? Why should they be prohibited if the goal of "marriage equality" is to allow a person to marry any other person?
. . . Several years ago, an NPR report cited studies indicating that some 50,000 to 100,000 American Muslims live in polygamous marriages -- although of course they are not recognized as such under any state law.
Niemeyer was not advocating for recognition of polygamous marriages. On the contrary, he was warning that the same legal construct used to expand marriage laws to include same-sex unions must logically continue the expansion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judges 'open door' to marriage of 3, 4 or 5 people" by Greg Corombos, Radio America, posted at WND.com 7/29/14
“Over the decades, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that the right to marry is an expansive liberty interest that may stretch to accommodate changing societal norms,” wrote [Judge] Floyd in his [majority 4th Circuit] opinion.
[Liberty Counsel Special Counsel Rena Lindevaldsen, said] “First you have the court proclaiming that the right is ever-expanding, and then you have this language that adults should be free to choose to love who they want to love. We already have challenges to the polygamy bans. We have a movement out there suggesting that two, three, four, five people should be able to come together in the marital union. So this opens that door entirely. Once you’ve opened the door past one man and one woman, which has historical and foundational roots, what’s to say the line can’t be drawn to allow two, three, four and five people to marry?”
“I like to think we could limit it, but from a legal perspective and realistically speaking, once you open the door the door is open,” Lindevaldsen said. “There simply is no reason to now say that three consenting adults, who love each other and want to raise children together, shouldn’t be allowed to marry once we retreat from the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Bush-and-Obama-Appointed Judge: It's 'Dubious Proposition That Same-Sex Couples are Less Capable Parents'" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 7/28/14
[U.S. 4th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Henry F.] Floyd made the [headline, above] remark while declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right and dismissing the argument made in favor of Virginia's marriage amendment that it safeguards the need of children to be raised by both a mother and a father.
"The proponents aver that 'children develop best when reared by their married biological parents in a stable family unit,'" wrote Floyd. "They dwell on the importance of 'gender-differentiated parenting' and argue that sanctioning same-sex marriage will deprive children of the benefit of being raised by a mother and a father, who have 'distinct parenting styles.' In essence, the proponents argue that the Virginia Marriage Laws safeguard children by preventing same-sex couples from marrying and starting inferior families."
. . . said Floyd. "For example, as the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and Virginia Psychological Association (collectively, the APA) explain in their amicus brief, 'there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation,' and 'the same factors'—including family stability, economic resources, and the quality of parent-child relationships—'are linked to children’s positive development, whether they are raised by heterosexual, lesbian, or gay parents.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read American Decline: Obama's Gay Agenda vs. Christians as well as America Going to Hell; Christians Lose Convictions
In addition, read Pastors Who Avoid Gay Agenda Deserve Hell, Says Rev. Franklin Graham
