Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
Here's a helpful link you should read before you vote in the poll: http://www.scribd.com/doc/150138202/United-States-v-Windsor
In a possible echo of the latest Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action, it appears the 10th circuit might be taking a cue on state's right to govern themselves:
It seems to me the echo of Windsor is being heard in the halls of the 10th. Maybe the general public hasn't read Windsor. But it's remotely possible that the 10th District circuit judges have?
Windsor was clear. It said that gay marriage was a very new concept after thousands of years of traditional marriage being the definition of marriage. Holmes asked if the gay marriage issue was the same as Loving. Perhaps he wanted lawyers for the gay crowd to clarify how they felt race and sexual behaviors are one and the same and both applicable to Loving?
Now this is an odd thing too. How is it that a county clerk from Oklahoma was allowed to have standing to appeal to the 10th district on the question of denying a marriage license to two women and county clerks simultaneously in California were not allowed to appeal the Prop 8 quagmire?
In a possible echo of the latest Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action, it appears the 10th circuit might be taking a cue on state's right to govern themselves:
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Lawyers for two Oklahoma women and the county clerk who would not give them a marriage license go before a federal appeals court with a familiar question for the judges: Did the state’s voters single out gay people for unfair treatment when they defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman?
The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard similar issues in a Utah case last week, giving Oklahoma lawyers a preview of what questions they might face.
“Essentially, (the cases) are not that different,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Byron Babione, who is representing Tulsa County Clerk Sally Howe Smith. “Both of them involve challenges to state marriage amendments that were passed by an overwhelming majority of the people.”..
..U.S. Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who asked whether Utah’s same-sex marriage ban was similar to Virginia’s former ban on interracial marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that ban 47 years ago.
Holmes also said, however, that gay marriages are a new concept for courts to address and that perhaps it is best to defer to the democratic process unless there is a compelling reason to step in.
...The Utah and Oklahoma cases are very similar: both involve bans on same-sex marriage passed by a majority of voters in 2004 - 76 percent in Oklahoma and 66 percent in Utah - and both bans were struck down by federal judges within a month of one another in December and January. The legal arguments for and against the ban are also similar.
Oklahoma gay-marriage case before U.S. appeals court - Washington Times
It seems to me the echo of Windsor is being heard in the halls of the 10th. Maybe the general public hasn't read Windsor. But it's remotely possible that the 10th District circuit judges have?
Windsor was clear. It said that gay marriage was a very new concept after thousands of years of traditional marriage being the definition of marriage. Holmes asked if the gay marriage issue was the same as Loving. Perhaps he wanted lawyers for the gay crowd to clarify how they felt race and sexual behaviors are one and the same and both applicable to Loving?
Now this is an odd thing too. How is it that a county clerk from Oklahoma was allowed to have standing to appeal to the 10th district on the question of denying a marriage license to two women and county clerks simultaneously in California were not allowed to appeal the Prop 8 quagmire?
Last edited: