This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-upholds-bans-on-same-sex-marriage-in-four-states/2014/11/06/6390904c-65fc-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Appeals court upholds bans on same-sex marriage for first time | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld same-sex marriage bans in four states Thursday afternoon, creating a split among the nation’s appeals courts that almost surely means the Supreme Court must take up the issue of whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. | A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld same-sex marriage bans in four states Thursday afternoon, creating a split among the nation’s appeals courts that almost surely means the Supreme Court must take up the issue of whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry. |
| The panel ruled 2 to 1 that while gay marriage is almost inevitable, in the words of U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, it should be settled through the democratic process and not the judiciary. The decision overturned rulings in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, and makes the 6th Circuit the first appeals court to uphold state bans since the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. | The panel ruled 2 to 1 that while gay marriage is almost inevitable, in the words of U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, it should be settled through the democratic process and not the judiciary. The decision overturned rulings in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky, and makes the 6th Circuit the first appeals court to uphold state bans since the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. |
| The Supreme Court began its term last month by declining to hear appeals of decisions that had struck down same-sex marriage bans, greatly expanding the number of states in which gays may marry. | The Supreme Court began its term last month by declining to hear appeals of decisions that had struck down same-sex marriage bans, greatly expanding the number of states in which gays may marry. |
| It did not explain its decision, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said in interviews that the court does not usually accept cases unless there is disagreement in the appeals courts. | It did not explain its decision, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said in interviews that the court does not usually accept cases unless there is disagreement in the appeals courts. |
| The 6th Circuit’s decision provides that. | The 6th Circuit’s decision provides that. |
| Sutton, writing for himself and Judge Deborah L. Cook, said that the challengers had not made the case for “constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.” | Sutton, writing for himself and Judge Deborah L. Cook, said that the challengers had not made the case for “constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.” |
| Judge Margaret Craig Daughtry dissented. “If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams. | Judge Margaret Craig Daughtry dissented. “If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams. |
| Chase Strangio, staff attorney in the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project, said his organization will move quickly to get the issue before the justices. | |
| "We will be filing for Supreme Court review right away and hope that through this deeply disappointing ruling we will be able to bring a uniform rule of equality to the entire country." | |
| Winning Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) also called for quick action. “The sooner they rule, the better, for Michigan and the country,” he said in a statement. | |
| If the sides move quickly, there is still time for the court to accept the case for the current term’s docket, and render a ruling by early next summer. |