Gay Marriage May Face Setback in Federal Court

Image: Gay Marriage May Face Setback in Federal Court (Mark Makela/Reuters/Landov)

Thursday, 07 Aug 2014 07:10 AM

By Elliot Jager

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
Two federal appeals courts have ruled that states may not ban same-sex marriage. Now, the more conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati may decide that states have the prerogative of defining marriage as between man and women, The Washington Post reported.

If the appellate courts come to opposite conclusions — other appeals courts are expected to hear similar challenges — the U.S. Supreme Court will come under pressure to intervene and make a definitive ruling.

The legal dispute is whether the 2013 Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Windsor, requiring the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal, means that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right and that more traditional states may not ban such unions.

The Cincinnati panel is composed of judges Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook, and Martha Craig Daughtrey.

During oral argument, Sutton queried lawyers for same-sex couples as to why they preferred to put their hopes in five votes of the Supreme Court rather than capturing the "hearts and minds" of their fellow Americans, according to the Post.

Their lawyer, Alphonse Gerhardstein, replied that fundamental rights should not hinge on popular approval, the Post reported.

Sutton and Cook were nominated by president George W. Bush. Daughtrey was nominated by President Bill Clinton. Daughtrey made it clear she supports gay marriage, according to the Post. Cook appeared to side with the states and opponents of single-sex marriage.

Sutton's comments left it unclear which way he would go, the newspaper reported. He is known for his judicially conservative temperament and formerly was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Sutton disappointed conservatives with his ruling that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional.

Regarding the present case, Sutton said it boils down to whether states were empowered to define marriage. He noted that the Supreme Court's message in Windsor, while ambiguous, seemed to lean toward the protection of gay rights, the Post reported.

Related Stories:

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Dallas Presbyterian Will No Longer Treat Ebola Patients

Tuesday, 21 Oct 2014 16:18 PM

The Dallas hospital that handled the first fatal case of the Ebola virus reported in the U.S., and later had two of the  . . .

Freedom of Information Request Backlog Hits 50,000 at DHS

Tuesday, 21 Oct 2014 16:00 PM

Those seeking documents from the Department of Homeland Security will likely have to wait for their requests to be fille . . .

Jewish Group Shifts View on Nazi Benefit Payments

Tuesday, 21 Oct 2014 16:00 PM

An influential Jewish advocacy group no longer supports allowing suspected Nazi war criminals to receive Social Security . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved