U.S. Sixth Circuit Court Upholds Traditional Marriage Laws in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee

Judge Jeffrey Sutton. Read his decision upholding defense-of-marriage laws HERE.

The following release was put out yesterday by CCV Action, the legislative action arm of Citizens for Community Values. Finally, some good sense and humility out of a federal court on the same-sex “marriage” issue! [Read the full decision HERE.]  We reprint Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s words below because they represent such a stark contrast to those of other federal judges who, like so many “progressives” and judicial elitists, relish “making history” on homosexuality-based “marriage” even if it means invalidating millions of votes and disenfranchising millions of American citizens on this critical moral and social issue.

Judge Sutton said:

“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: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.”

The 2-1 majority decision continues:

“This case ultimately presents two ways to think about change. One is whether the Supreme Court will constitutionalize a new definition of marriage to meet new policy views about the issue. The other is whether the Court will begin to undertake a different form of change—change in the way we as a country optimize the handling of efforts to address requests for new civil liberties.

“If the Court takes the first approach, it may resolve the issue for good and give the plaintiffs and many others relief. But we will never know what might have been. If the Court takes the second approach, is it not possible that the traditional arbiters of change—the people—will meet today’s challenge admirably and settle the issue in a productive way?”

What a concept: let ‘We the People’ have our say on one of the most controversial issues of our time–rather than imposing a “solution” through the dubious application of laws and amendments intended to correct societal racism to reinventing marriage itself.

Congratulations to Phil Burress and CCV–and pro-family advocates in the other states–for all their hard work in defending marriage as what it is: a sacred union between one man and one woman. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

_______________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact Phil Burress, President
513-403-7441

By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court has ruled that the marriage laws of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee do not violate the federal Constitution. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, joined by Judge Deborah Cook, wrote the majority opinion.

The court looked at the law and ruled correctly. This marriage question is a states’ rights issue, and no state should be unjustly forced to accept another state’s license according to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S.

Constitution. Neither a law license, beautician’s license, nor a hunting license should be recognized and honored by another state if that state already has a strong public policy against that license. It should be the same with a marriage license. Ohio has a strong public policy that says marriage is one man and one woman. Massachusetts does not get to determine marriage policy for Ohio. It’s that simple, and the Federal 6th Circuit Court got it right.

In his written opinion, Judge Sutton did an excellent job recognizing and articulating proper constitutional authority. We’ve included a few quotes from his opinion:

“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: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.”

“So it normally goes with the Constitution: The written charter cements the limitations on government into an unbending bulwark, not a vane alterable whenever alterations occur—unless and until the people, like contracting parties, choose to change the contract through the agreed-upon mechanisms for doing so.”