Author Topic: Federal Judge: Right to Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Deeply Rooted in Nation’s History and Implicit in The Concept of Ordered Liberty'  (Read 422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,767
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/federal-judge-right-same-sex-marriage-deeply-rooted-nation-s-history

Quote
(CNSNews.com) - Judge Robert J. Shelby, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the U.S. District Court in Utah last year, issued an opinion on Friday declaring that a right to same-sex marriage is "deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Shelby was confirmed to the federal bench by a voice vote of the Senate on Sept. 21, 2012. There was no debate over his nomination, and no senator objected to his confirmation.

He has now issued an opinion that could fundamentally alter American law and culture.

“The State’s second argument is that the Plaintiffs are really seeking a new right, not access to an existing right,” Shelby wrote in an opinion issued on the afternoon of the Friday before Christmas.

“To establish a new fundamental right, the court must determine that the right is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it] were sacrificed,” he said.

This unanimously-confirmed, not-debated-on-the-Senate-floor, Obama-nominated judge then proceeded to do that just that.

“Because same-sex marriage has only recently been allowed by a number of states, the State argues that an individual’s right to marry someone of the same sex cannot be a fundamental right,” he wrote. “But the Supreme Court did not adopt this line of reasoning in the analogous case of Loving v. Virginia. Instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that individuals could not be restricted from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the race of their chosen partner. Similarly, the Plaintiffs here do not seek a new right to same-sex marriage, but instead ask the court to hold that the State cannot prohibit them from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the sex of their chosen partner.

“The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond,” wrote the judge.
o .


Online mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 35,338
Quote
the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond
By this logic, one may marry his sister, son or daughter or anyone else. Heck, why limit it to "the person"? Just call animals persons and let's go crazy! It's all love.
Life is too short to leave the key to your happiness in someone else's pocket.

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 46,021
  • #ToldYouSo
This judge is utterly off-base on this point.  If that is the only rationale for his holding, then he'll be overturned easily.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 21,851
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
This judge is utterly off-base on this point.  If that is the only rationale for his holding, then he'll be overturned easily.

Agree!

Offline rustynail

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
Because he refused to issue a stay, and the homos are already getting "married" (amazing how they had it all planned out ahead of time), no appeals court will overturn now because it would be "unfair" to those bleep who are already "married."  This is what they used in CA and it worked all the way to the Supreme Court; albeit by a Supreme Court sidestep.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Where is it?
I can't find it.
No sheep is safe.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 46,021
  • #ToldYouSo
Because he refused to issue a stay, and the homos are already getting "married" (amazing how they had it all planned out ahead of time), no appeals court will overturn now because it would be "unfair" to those bleep who are already "married."  This is what they used in CA and it worked all the way to the Supreme Court; albeit by a Supreme Court sidestep.

Hardly.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf