Thread: Federal Judge Paul J. Kelly Rejects Same Sex “Marriage”

Federal Judge Paul J. Kelly Rejects Same Sex “Marriage”

Tim Brown 17 hours ago

Spoiler alert: The ruling was not against the redefinition of marriage, but does mark the first time a federal judge has broken with liberal judges to side with state bans on sodomite redefinitions of marriage. In a case before the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. wrote an incredible dissent to the majority opinion in which he said that overriding the will of the people in state banned redefinitions of marriage "turns the notion of a limited national government on its head." Judge Kelly seems to side with our own Publius Huldah in rejecting the idea that the 14^th Amendment can be abused to bring in all sorts of perversion to society such as abortion (murder of the unborn), sexual orientation and redefining marriage to include sodomites.

The Associated Press' Nicholas Riccardi reports:

Wednesday's gay marriage ruling contained two historic firsts: It was the first appellate decision for gay marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Law exactly one year ago, and it also marked the first time since then a federal judge has argued for keeping a state ban on same sex marriages.

Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. was in the minority in his opinion as the two other judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel found the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of gay couples to marry. Kelly has broken the string of 16 state and federal judges who sided with gay marriage advocates in cases across the country over the past year.

There is no question that the court sided with sodomites on this issue. As the Washington Post reports:

The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex.

The court dismissed as "wholly illogical" the notion that allowing gays to wed could somehow undermine traditional marriage.

The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down Utah's gay marriage ban. It becomes law in the six states covered by the 10th Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But the panel immediately put the ruling on hold pending an appeal.

However, consider that Kelly is a George W. Bush appointee and that he presided over the case of the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. His opinion is not something to be kept in the background, nor is the idea of what traditional or biblical marriage.
Judge Kelly believes that the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, and as such "that power is reserved to the States, albeit consistent with federal constitutional guarantees."
"And while the Court has recognized a fundamental right to marriage, every decision vindicating that right has involved two persons of the opposite gender," he wrote. "Indeed, the Court has been less than solicitous of plural marriages or polygamy."
Kelly, 73, wrote in his dissent on Wednesday, ""If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head."

He then makes an important point that I made in a recent article, when he spoke about the important social function of marriage. He wrote, "Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this (including whether to extend marriage to same-gender couples) is inevitable. And given the recent advent of same-gender marriage, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689, it is hardly remarkable that a state might codify what was once implicit."
Judge Kelly then points to where the Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue of marriage in the case of Baker v. Nelson. Kelly claims the dismal of the court on the subject, which the Supreme Court did following its ruling on DOMA, "should foreclose the Plaintiff's claims, at least in this court."
Kelly also took on the issue of "Equal Protection-Gender Discrimination." Judge Kelly wrote, "Plaintiffs argue that defining marriage to exclude same-gender unions is based upon gender stereotyping where 'the law presumed women to be legally, socially, and financially dependent upon men.'"
However, Kelly then appealed to the Utah Constitution, writing "Utah's constitutional and statutory provisions, Utah Const. art. I, § 29 and Utah Code §§ 30-1-2(5), 30-1-4.1, enacted in 1977 and 2004, simply define marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman and do not recognize any other domestic union, i.e., same-gender marriage. They apply to same-gender male couples and same-gender female couples alike."
Jeff Allen at Barbwire comments:

"That such a decision will inevitably usher our nation down the slippery slope of deviancy was likewise emphasized when Judge Kelly continued, 'Were marriage a freestanding right without reference to the parties, Utah would be hard-pressed to prohibit marriages for minors under 15 and impose conditions for other minors.' And the judge's insightful assertion is as prescient as it is perceptive; The same legal reasoning that is currently being employed by the 'gay marriage' advocates and their attorneys will certainly be utilized, and in fact already has been, to argue for polygamy and lowering the age of consent in an insidious effort to legalize pedophilia."

Most importantly, as Riccardi noted in his AP column, "The dissent heartened gay marriage opponents, who saw a hope of ending their year-long losing streak and puncturing the aura of inevitability that now surrounds same-sex marriage."

Kelly went on for several pages to point out numerous other issues, including due process. However, it seems he is the only judge that actually looked to the law as a basis for his dissent from the majority opinion. He looked to the Constitution of Utah, which is the law in the state.
For this, I applaud Judge Kelly. In a time when too many men are squeamish about standing up and calling the sodomite perversion "marriage," this man shows honor and integrity in upholding the law against such things. Well done Judge Kelly!
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/fe...l3XqeY7JkKi.99

August 15, 2014

Gay Marriage -- the Chicken or the Egg?

By Derrick Wilburn


An ever-increasing number of states adopting some form of legalized homosexual marriage is the contemporary revival of the age-old question, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The modern version of this question is, “are states legalizing gay marriage because more Americans are in favor of it, or, are more Americans in favor of it because states are legalizing it?”
With state after state in the USA adopting some form of legalized homosexual marriage it would be easy to reach the conclusion that times are changing and American values are shifting in the direction of acceptance of homosexual union. While there is some movement in public perceptions the answer to the question is “well, yes and no”. Yes, there is a shift among Americans toward gay marriage – but certainly not all Americans. In fact this shift is taking place among a very tiny fraction of American citizens. One such individual is Richard L. Young.
Mr. Young is a U.S. District Court Judge in Indiana who struck down the state’s constitutional definition of marriage (as voted upon by the majority if residents of the state) as being between one man and one woman. No, Americans in general are not screaming for gay marriage. Yes, some Americans are moving in the direction of legalized same-sex marriage, it so happens that the citizens who seem most in favor of redefining marriage are known by a single word -- judges.
While it probably is true that perceptions are slowly shifting among the populace en masse, such tidal changes typically take decades if not generations to show up as legislative changes, let alone constitutional ones. The wave of states legalizing same-sex marriage unions is not the result of shifting values in America, it is the result of amazingly resilient and determined activists using the courts to overturn the will of the people.
Homosexual marriage amendments (or state-constitutional bans thereof) have been placed on ballots 34 times and have been defeated 31 times. Yes, even in California Proposition 8 -- an amendment to the state's constitution that denied same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry -- passed overwhelmingly. Yet California has same-sex marriage. Why? How is that possible if the masses spoke, and in California's case spoke loudly?
What’s happening in state after state is not the citizenry is giving its seal of approval to same-sex marriage -- in fact, we are doing quite the opposite. Then once a measure fails lawyers funded by activists file lawsuits and begin a legal process. If and when the first attempt fails they file an appeal and try again. And again. And again. These lawsuits run up through the court system until finally landing on the desk of a judge sympathetic to the cause. That judge then takes the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box and with the stroke of a pen throws it out.
There are currently nineteen states that have legalized same-sex marriage, of those nineteen just three have done so as a result of the popular vote of the people (Maine, 2012; Maryland, 2013; Washington, 2012.) On this topic at least, the desire of the voting public is secondary to the desire of the judicial ruling class. And it is a very small class indeed. Our nation’s direction as it relates to gay-marriage is being determined not by the tabulation of hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes per state. No, it is being determined by men like Richard Young.
Another such individual, Justice Henry F. Floyd serves on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. He along with a colleague similarly ruled that Virginia’s constitutional provision for definition of marriage has got to go. Last month (on July 28, 2014) the two of them overturned the state’s (aka: the people’s) constitution. Virginians voted 57 to 43 percent (a thorough drubbing) in 2006 to amend the state’s constitution thus banning gay marriage. It was clearly what the people wanted. Mr. Floyd sees things differently and in essence said to the people of Virginia, “Sorry, you rubes.” If that weren’t enough, the 4th Circuit’s decision will also apply to all other states in the district (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia.)
Including the forementioned Indiana that makes six states with a combined population of approximately thirty-seven million people; the will of those people as expressed in the writing and amending of their state’s constitution has been obliterated by but three individuals.
Since the Supreme Court’s dismantling of the Defense of Marriage Act one year ago there now has been twenty consecutive federal court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage. Twenty in a row! The decision did not embolden gay-marriage activists to continually present the issue to Americans as ballot initiatives, rather it opened the floodgates to sue, sue, and sue some more. Note the headlines of the following articles, all published in 2014:
SIX COUPLES FILE LAWSUIT
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT STRIKES DOWN BAN
FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN STATES BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE
ACTIVISTS CHEER COURT RULING
Notice any commonality? None dealing with actual election results because the election results are consistent and are not something for gay-marriage proponents to applaud. None tout the idea of letting our systems of self-governance run its course. None trumpeting “We the People”. Rather all of these stories (and I could easily have posted links to dozens and dozens) have gay-marriage proponents applauding court decisions, not election results.
So don't be fooled into thinking "Americans now want same-sex marriage." The truth is, "a handful of Americans now want same-sex marriage." It so happens that some of that handful have jobs that grant them the power to simply overrule the will and desire of the masses, even if only temporarily. As it relates to this particular topic, we are not being governed according to the will of the people. We are being governed by the wills of two or three or so.
Voters have chosen to define marriage as between “one male and one female” in 31 states. In 15 of those states the will of the people has been summarily overturned by a judge. All 15 of those rulings from the bench have occurred in the last 10 years. The remaining state constitutions are under attack as you read this. When it comes to legalized homosexual-marriage versus state’s rights we now know which came first – it was the chicken.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/gay_marriage__the_chicken_or_the_egg.html

Brand-New Call: No Marriage Licenses For Anyone

Wednesday, October 22, 2014







Sen. Vick said he and the local community are outraged by the Coeur d’Alene’s treatment of the Knapps and anyone else seeking the free exercise of their faith.
“It’s very disappointing to me that they would require a Christian business owner to do something that violates their religious convictions, which I believe are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Vick said. “Most of the reaction that I incurred has been from disappointment to shock that [the city] would do that.”
Vick has plans to meet with the Knapps later this week to discuss the ordeal. In the meantime, he expects the state legislature to address the issue. Vick admits there is no concrete legislation in place yet, but many lawmakers strongly believe the state needs to take action. The senator is personally investigating two approaches, the second of which may come as a major surprise to other conservatives.
“One is to try to re-establish the standing of those who have deeply held religious convictions,” Vick said. “Another potential avenue that I’m exploring is just eliminating marriage licenses in Idaho.”
Vick admits eliminating state sanctioning of marriage would be a big step, and he is only beginning to explore that option. Still, he said the response so far is very positive.


Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/2014/10/bra...BigKF1M7WWi.99


These people just don't quit ..

Do it my way or don't do it at all....Really think they will get away with this new one???

What part do they not get Marriage is between a man and a women, not a man and a man, or a women and a women. Oh excuse me not even a dog and person etc. etc. etc.... If they want that they can do that through some sort of civil service. but they really should be careful for what they wish for, that kind of thing tends to come back and bite them you know where.....

Appeals court: States can define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman

Definition 'shared not long ago by every society in the world'

Published: 2 days ago Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.



A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday stunningly affirmed the rights of voters in four states – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee – to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, throwing a boulder into the millpond of complacent assumptions by homosexual-rights advocates that same-sex marriage is a given across the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently has refused to take on any same-sex marriage cases, allowing the movement to expand into about 30 states.
But Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, which has fought on behalf of traditional marriage, said that now may change.

“With a divide in the appeals court rulings, the Supreme Court will likely take up the issue,” he said.

Previous rulings from the high court on the issue have found that the institution is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman. In 1942, it said marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” In 1888 it ruled, “An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Staver said marriage “is not merely a creation of any one civilization or its statutes, but is an institution older than the Constitution and, indeed, older than any laws of any nation.”

“Marriage is a natural bond that society or religion can only ‘solemnize,’” he said.

The 6th Circuit agreed in a 2-1 decision, concluding no federal judges should be making such a decision.

“Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us – just two of us in truth – to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four states of the Sixth Circuit.”

The pro-homosexual Marriage Equality organization called the ruling “out of step with the decisions of 40 other courts.”
The organization said states as diverse as “Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Utah” recently have “embrace[d] marriage equality.”
“It is clear that the freedom to marry is a fundamental constitutional right that belongs to all Americans, not just some Americans,” said spokesman John Lewis.

But the organization did not note that a vast majority of the states that have “embraced” same-sex marriage have done so largely by judicial decree, after voters in many of those states specifically chose to define in their laws or even constitution marriage as one man and one woman.
Before federal judges stepped in, the wave of state affirmations of traditional marriage was virtually unstoppable, with victories in 31 of 31 elections.

Critics have argued that if the traditional definition is dropped, there would be no legitimate reason to continue bans on incest or polygamy.
That opinion was included in a legal decision in California, where judges created same-sex marriage.

State Supreme Court justice Marvin Baxter, writing a dissent, said: “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.

“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”

His warning?

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

The 6th Circuit said: “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the states…. One starts from the premise that governments got into the business of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse. Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children.”

And the judges wrote: “Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them…. People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws (that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative. And governments typically are not second-guessed under the Constitution for prioritizing how they tackle such issues.”
There is a logic behind traditional marriage, they said.

“What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g., with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the states created an incentive for two people who procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the states of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex do not run the risk of unintended offspring. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the states to retain authority.”

Byron Babione, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said: “The people of every state should remain free to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws. As the 6th Circuit rightly concluded, the Constitution does not demand that one irreversible view of marriage be judicially imposed on everyone. The 6th Circuit’s decision is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s acknowledgement in Windsor that marriage law is the business of the states.”

The ruling from the 6th Circuit reversed district court rulings that had struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

It conflicts with rulings from the 4th, 7th, 9th and 10th circuits.

Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, described by USA Today as one of the Republican Party’s most esteemed legal thinkers and writers, issued the 42-page decision. Deborah Cook concurred.

Sutton noted a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling from 1972 also “upheld the right of the people of a state to define marriage as they see it.”
Sutton concluded: “Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said: “We applaud the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for upholding the freedom of the people to define marriage as the union of a man and woman. The Sixth Circuit rightly recognizes that the Constitution does not demand that this modern redefinition of marriage be forced on the States. The American people simply will not accept a nationwide redefinition of marriage imposed on them by a judicial oligarchy.

“As the debate continues, recent polls and the election demonstrate that support for marriage redefinition is stalling as Americans begin to experience and consider the consequences for religious freedom, free speech, and parental rights.”

“Where marriage is redefined, parents are increasingly finding a wedge being driven between them and their children as school curricula is changed to contradict the morals parents are teaching their children. And as more and more people lose their livelihoods because they refuse to not just tolerate but celebrate same-sex marriage, many Americans are beginning to see that this is about far more than the marriage alter, but is about fundamentally altering society.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/appeals-c...YGJFopeD1Kp.99

So much for the Sanctity of Marriage...These people won't be happy till everything we have in our Country is destroyed....And they have the Pope on their side to help......Amazing!