Saturday, September 06, 2014

'Gay Marriage' Battle Seeks Supreme (Court) Savior

As yet another federal appeals court overruled majority voters in states defining natural marriage, thirty-two state governments are now formally pleading that the U.S. Supreme Court decide the matter once and for all, thus leading to a potential watershed moment in U.S. history:  Will nine unelected judges successfully exert totalitarian rule over all fifty states and millions of citizens, or will the Constitution prevail?

UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court

For background, read Federal Judge Cites Supreme Court Rulings to Support Louisiana Marriage Amendment

Also read Polygamy Too: Federal Court Ruling for 'Gay Marriage' as well as Judge Says Incest OK; It's the New Gay

However, read about other judges (including appellate) who have ruled in favor of natural marriage saying that there is NO constitutional protection for "gay marriage," but also read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

In addition, read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "32 States Ask Supreme Court to Settle Gay Marriage" by The Associated Press 9/5/14

Fifteen states that allow gay marriage, led by Massachusetts, filed a brief asking the justices to take up three cases from Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma and overturn bans. And 17 other states, led by Colorado, that have banned the practice asked the court to hear cases from Utah and Oklahoma to clear up a "morass" of lawsuits, but didn't urge the court to rule one way or another.

Massachusetts was joined by California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.

Colorado's brief argued that the definition of marriage faces legal challenges only the Supreme Court can resolve, and that without a Supreme Court decision, states defending bans could be liable for huge legal bills from future lawsuits if they are overturned. It was written by Daniel D. Domenico, the state's solicitor general, and Michael Lee Francisco, assistant solicitor general.

Colorado was joined by Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "‘Friends’ of same-sex marriage case ask Supreme Court to intervene" by Marissa Lang, The Salt Lake Tribune 9/5/14

The pro "traditional marriage" lobby has urged the high court to leave marriage regulation to the states, arguing that states have the right to define marriage as they see fit and that deviating from the long-standing man-woman view of marriage may be harmful to children and society at large.

The more than a dozen briefs will be read and considered by the nation’s high court when deciding which — if any — same-sex marriage case to take in its upcoming session.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Court rules against Wisconsin's, Indiana's gay marriage bans" by Jason Stein and Patrick Marley, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 9/4/14

The [unanimous] decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals [in Chicago] upholds lower federal court decisions in Madison and Indianapolis and helps set up a seemingly inevitable ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether gay marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution. In the meantime, the decision does not immediately take effect, but it does increase at least marginally the chances that Wisconsin's case is heard by the nation's highest court.

The decision for Indiana and Wisconsin is different from others because the judges based their ruling on arguments that the same-sex marriage bans violated the right to equal protection under the law, [whereas] . . . Other rulings have centered on the right of gay and lesbian couples to due process.

GOP Gov. Scott Walker had no comment on the decision while Dana Brueck, a spokeswoman for Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, said the state will appeal.

Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action and a vocal supporter of the gay marriage ban, said she was surprised by the speed of the decision, but not the outcome, after hearing the judges' views during arguments last week.

"Essentially what the judges are saying is the 1.26 million voters who voted on this in 2006 are a bunch of homophobic, irrational bigots," Appling said. "I absolutely don't believe that, but that's what the judges are saying."

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