There have now been 11 federal judges to rule since last summer that gay men and women must have the right to marry.
Today the issue was direct and central to one of the most conservative–and perhaps the most conservative– state in the nation.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale has ruled Idaho’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, opening the door for gay and lesbian couples to begin marrying as soon as Friday morning.
“This case asks a basic and enduring question about the essence of American government: Whether the will of the majority, based as it often is on sincere beliefs and democratic consensus, may trump the rights of a minority,” the judge wrote in her 57-page decision.
Idaho’s laws wrongly stigmatize gay and lesbian couples and relegate their families to second-class status without sufficient reason, Dale said.
“… Idaho’s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho’s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love,” Dale wrote.
CAFFEINATED POLITICS 
“There have now been 11 federal judges to rule since last summer that gay men and women must have the right to marry.”
Incorrect. Three of the eleven rulings only required recognizing out of state gay marriages. They did not overturn natural marriage laws or require those states to allow gay marriages to occur. Therefore, there have been eight rulings striking down natural marriage laws. Unless Candy Dale is a Republican, seven of the eight judges are Democrats. If you wish to include all eleven federal rulings pertaining to gay marriage, nine of them were issued by Democratic judges.
“…one of the most conservative–and perhaps the most conservative– state in the nation.”
This is irrelevant since the ruling was made by only one person. Candy Dale’s political affiliation is obscure, but this illustrates the political leanings of the state have nothing to do with the outcome. The other rulings made by Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virgina judges are all Democrats. Michigan (a blue state) is the only Republican ruling allowing gay marriage.
Such a lopsided composition of judges reveal how the outcomes are not representative or indicative of the future of nationalized gay marriage. Justice Kennedy is sympathetic to gay causes in general, but it’s presumptuous to believe he will undermine state authority, sovereignty and purview by forcing gay marriage on the entire nation.
Let me clear some things up for you.
EVERY federal judge who has considered challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage recognition has come to the same conclusion. That is that there is no legal or constitutional basis for denying gay men and women to engage in same-sex marriage. While different cases were waged on various aspects of the law there is no escaping the words of the judges themselves.
Even in Kentucky where the question was recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages there was a very firm statement.
“Each of these small steps has led to this place and this time, where the right of same-sex spouses to the state-conferred benefits of marriage is virtually compelled,” Judge Heyburn wrote.
As to Idaho being the most conservative state, I speak–and I thought readers were informed enough to know–about the political landscape. Therefore it is refreshing to folks such as myself to see that gay marriage is making inroads even into the most red of red states. There will be gay marriage there in short order, and for that I am grateful.
The law is read and studied by people of all political stripes, and you might have noticed the growing coalition of a most diverse political assembly that backs the legalization and recognition of gay marriage. The fact is among young people this is a settled issue, and political parties are not going to stand in the way of where the country is headed. There are attempts here and there to backslide with some conservatives leading the way but there is no real concern as the polls show the majority in favor of gay marriage, and those numbers are growing.
Ask high school kids about the matter and they wonder what is the big deal. After all there are gay couples at prom, and guys mess around for fun at that age all the time. It just is not a fringe part of society you make it out to be with your tone about ‘natural law marriages”. In college the numbers spike dramatically when it comes to acceptance of gay marriage.
Many of us have worked over the decades (myself since 1982) to put a face on being gay. Not just to close friends and some family members, but to everyone. My boss, co-workers in the office, my neighbors, and to everyone in my book. That was a goal that many worked to establish in the 80’s and then we worked one person at a time (multiplied many times) to impact the nation.
And we have.
Gay marriage will soon be the law of the land, and you too have gay people in your family, church, neighborhood, etc. You might even have the honor of being invited to a gay wedding. I can tell you the food will be great, the presentation of the nuptials will be lavish, and a good time will be had by all.
Thanks for your post, but it was non-responsive and repetitive.
Nothing needed to be cleared. You presented a generalized statement of federal marriage rulings without any context. I provided some because omitting the political leanings of judges is misleading. They’re predominantly indicative of their rulings, especially on issues like this.
Complete redundancy that ignores the pertinent facts of the judges I specified. The 10th Circuit appeal has two Republican judges but one will join the Democrat to allow gay marriage. The 4th Circuit appeal also has two Republican judges, but it’s murkier on how the swing vote will go. On Monday, Oregon will begin allowing gay marriage. However, one has to laugh at the fact the judge in this case is openly gay and is ‘raising’ a child with his boyfriend. Any doubt he’ll rule to allow himself to marry his gay boyfriend?
The Kentucky case had nothing to do with overturning laws that only allow natural marriage. The term ‘natural marriage’ is self defined as it unites the unique and complimentary genders that predominately create families. There was a conflict in the Kentucky constitution. When the newer amendment passed codifying man-woman marriage, legislators did not repeal an older provision which required recognition of all out of state marriages. If this had been repealed at the same time the new provision was enacted, there may have been a different outcome. On the other hand, the judge may have the same view as the Michigan judge that overturned the man-woman requirement. We’ll probably never know, but the fact remains the Kentucky ruling only required the state to recognize marriages from other states. Gay marriage is banned in Kentucky.
You did it again. “Most red of red states” did not strike down the marriage law. It was struck down by one person. Idaho being the “most red of red states” is irrelevant due to this fact. Every state has judges from both sides of the aisle. The gay activists have made shrewd maneuvers to file lawsuits in districts most likely to get a Democratic judge.
A vague and ambiguous statement. The law is “read and studied” by ideologues or those who know nothing about the law and attempt to comment on it as if they did.
Relying on the views of the most naive, inexperienced, uneducated and uninformed does not support your position. Young people supporting Democrats, activists and other related causes is nothing unusual. Any Democrat can take up a cause (like gay marriage), preach away to the most easily manipulated demographic and get favorable results. Presenting the views of high schoolers as support for legalizing gay marriage is amusing but hardly a constituency for credence on any given subject. Your blase attitude referencing “guys mess around for fun” is anything but “fun” when it comes to sexually active young people. Doing something for fun does not mean it should be ignored or encouraged.
Your reliance on polls are dubious at best and useless at worst. Polls are deceptive and manipulative in their wording and respondents worry surveys of this nature can be traced backed to them facing future retaliation. That was the case before Brandon Eich which only exacerbated the problem.
This is a generalized manifesto of gay marriage. If your goal is for others to acknowledge that homosexuality exists that’s one thing, but advocating the rewriting of marriage laws that equivocate men and women, husbands and wives and fathers and mothers as synonymous, interchangeable or irrelevant is a detrimental path to take. I do not have any gay relatives. I don’t ask others in my community of their sexual orientation, nor has anyone identified themselves as subscribing to an alternative lifestyle. People in general like to avoid certain social events, weddings being one of them, unless it’s a close friend or family member. If attendance is obligated, good food is a consolation prize.
You do have gay relatives. Given your attitude they may not confide in you—but you do have gay family members.
You are still not able to understand that the political colure of red states is what I am addressing, and forcing those states to confront their bigotry and adhere to laws that promote progressive values, in this case gay marriage, is a very good thing.
You also seem not to grasp the sea change that taken place in this nation with gay rights making it so classrooms have openly gay teachers, the military no longer disallows gay members, and even the military academies are having gay weddings. I was even an openly gay Big Brother. I know other gay couples that have adopted children. You also seem willfully resigned to not grasping what it means when .young people do not see gay marriage as anything to be feared or admonished. As the older generations passes from the scene the new views will only strengthen. Politically this is already well underway,
You may not want to admit it but gay Americans have prevailed in most the agenda that we started to fight for about 40 years ago. The media present our point of view almost every night in one way or another, and Modern Family is perhaps the best weekly example of that fact.
I end this comment with the following which is really a summation of what every other federal judge has ruled when it comes to gay marriage.
U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen wrote that the constitutional right to equality should apply to all, including same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses.
“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us,” wrote Wright Allen, an Eastern District of Virginia judge in Norfolk. “While ever vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary’s noblest endeavors is to scrutinize law that emerge from such roots.”
Wright Allen began her opinion with an excerpt from Mildred Loving’s “Loving for All.” Loving, a black woman, was banished from Virginia for marrying a white man. She brought her case to the Supreme Court, leading to the end of state miscegenation laws. The judge concluded with a salute to President Abraham Lincoln:
Almost one hundred and fifty four years ago, as Abraham Lincoln approached the cataclysmic rending of our nation over a struggle for other freedoms, a rending that would take his own life and the lives of hundreds of thousands of others, he wrote these words: “It can not have failed to strike you that these men ask for just… the same thing — fairness, and fairness only. This so far as in my power, they, and all others, shall have.”
The men and women, and the children too, whose voices join in noble harmony with plaintiffs today, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it is in this Court’s power, they and all others shall have.
Attempting a clairvoyant statement can make you feel better, but you’re only making yourself look foolish. None of my relatives are gay despite your efforts to insist otherwise. As for my “attitude”, politics is not even a topic of discussion, including alternative marriages. The fact my relatives are happily committed to natural marriage renders your statement moot. The gay population comprises approximately 3% of a nation of 320 million, so the odds of having a gay relative are extremely remote. These facts will not change no matter how hard you wish to the contrary.
I understood you specifically connected the judge’s rulings to the political composition of the states. It’s more likely you were so blinded by your excitement you conflated the two. Once I pointed out the distinction, you revealed your own spiteful bigotry toward those who disagree with you, now cheering the fact gay marriage will be forced on a red state.
I never said there was no change of any kind in the political climate. The real “sea change” is based in political correctness as I alluded to regarding poll wording and fear of retribution. The number of gay teachers is statistically minute and the few military weddings were in New York and Maryland because those states legalized gay marriage. If gay couples (why not gay trios?) adopt orphans, civil unions would suffice without rewriting any marriage laws. You seem willfully resigned to not grasping the ignorance, naivete and gullibility of young people that are easily manipulated into supporting virtually any cause the Democrats inundate them with. I did not say homosexuality per se should be feared or admonished, only there is no “right” for marriage to be expanded to accommodate desired marital orientations.
Your prediction/desire for the general population to equate natural marriage with other combinations once “older generations [pass] from the scene” is naive and malignant. The most successful change has been to form a mob mentality toward those who support fundamental marriages that reflect the complimentary genders and the foundation of a complete family unit of a father and mother. It’s ironic how the Democrats champion “diversity” but not diversity of thought. Instead of inviting and accepting opposing views for robust debate, dissenters are to be persecuted, harassed, threatened, punished and silenced.
It’s a stretch to think the media could be more biased then its current state. The three broadcast networks, CNN and the ultra leftist network of MSNBC routinely cheer lead leftist causes. Much of the same exists for newspaper publications that only have a 7% representation of Republican journalists. The erosion and degradation of the modern family is nothing to brag about. Redefining marriage exacerbates and accelerates the decline of American values and provides additional legal force to those who seek to expand marriages even further.
As I previously illustrated, 10 of 13 judicial federal rulings have been made by Democrats. You again cite a Democratic judge, this time a radical leftist appointed by Obama. Hardly a source for an objective interpretation of the Constitution or neutrality. Her absurd comparison between looks and gender is one example. Marriage limited by one’s appearance is subjective, variant and boundless unlike gender, which is objective, immutable and finite. Natural marriage also reflects the existing genders that compliment each other and form the basis of familial creation. Hardly criteria of “bigotry” but intuitive, objective logic of biological, social human existence and common sense.
The Loving case did not overhaul the definition of marriage, it did not equate men and women, husbands and wives or fathers and mothers as interchangeable, synonymous or irrelevant. It did not promote additional illegitimacy, broken homes and depriving children of a father or mother. The phony narrative of “fairness” rests on expanding marriage to accommodate demands based on a preferred marital configuration. This has no limit as orientation is not restricted to a gender or one partner match. Nobody can marry anyone they want. Should marital preferences be nationalized, bigamy for bisexuals must be allowed, polygamy for polyamourists, incest for relatives, inanimate objects for object sexualists and countless others become fair game. Many scoffed that gay marriage would never happen. Gay activists now make the same presumptuous claim regarding additional marriage expansion.
Two appeals courts have completed hearings, each has two Republican judges. One of the 10th Circuit Republicans denied a stay when the District Court overturned the constitutional amendment. Unless he’s changed his mind, he’ll likely side with the gays. The 4th Circuit also has a Republican as the swing vote, but is more of a toss up. However, he ruled against indefinite detainment which overturned a policy implemented by the same president that nominated him. If he exhibited leniency or sympathy for potential terrorists, it’s possible he’ll do the same for a domestic social issue. In the meantime, expect more cases predominantly coming in front of Democratic judges. Those that do not will likely be heard by a socially liberal jurist akin to those in Michigan and Pennsylvania. There are about 70 cases ongoing and the Supreme Court will take its time, so we’ll see how things continues to unfold.
Let me assure you that you do have gay family members. For instance my family reunions can have as many as 60 people show up and I know there are several gay people in the crowd.
Several years ago I brought my partner to my Dad’s side of the family reunion and was soon in a discussion with a male cousin who was trying to find his way forward. By being myself, and comfortable with who I am, allowed him the following year to bring his gay partner.
I have always included my partner in every family function over the past 14 years and have discovered that putting a face on being gay is the best education there is for moving our nation forward.
Today I live in a city where several members of our city council are openly gay, my member of congress is openly gay and married, my United States Senator who lived only a block from me until she moved to a new home is openly gay. My partner and I live on a block with a lesbian family from Sweden and their child, the other side of the street in one direction has a gay couple of almost 15 years, and on the other block there is a male gay couple with an adopted girl. I could go on and on like this—the whole neighborhood is very gay friendly and accepting. The whole city is gay friendly.
The major university in our city and only a short distance from our home is very gay friendly and the young adults who study there are very much—as young people are everywhere—in favor of gay marriage.
The latest poll statewide for the governor’s race once again showed a major shift in favor of gay marriage.
And we all know that gay marriage is soon to be law. Both here and across the entire country.
Even our attorney general has conceded the point to news reporters this past week. Being a staunch conservative it must have made him twist a bit to do so, but still be made the point that the federal judge hearing the case will likely rule for same-sex marriage.
Even our conservative governor has told reporters that he is not going to wade into social issues, as he wants to stay focused on the economy and jobs. In other words everyone knows where this civil rights train is headed.
I am glad when civil rights are forced on those who live in the darkness of bigotry. (Like the red states in relation to same-sex marriage.) I am now reading yet another book on the Civil War, “Lincoln’s Boys” and love to see how the two secretaries to Lincoln wrote at the time about the level of economic ruin that resulted from slavery in the south.
I mention the book and the time period to underscore how my view of democracy is the continual leveling of wrongs, and the expansions of freedoms that comes from our government.
Such is the case with gay marriage.