Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Joins South Dakota, Arkansas and Missouri Traditional Marriage Cases and Sets Expedited Argument

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Joins South Dakota, Arkansas and Missouri Traditional Marriage Cases and Sets Expedited Argument

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty J. Jackley announces that the Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals has granted an expedited briefing schedule and set oral argument in the traditional marriage case for the week of May 11th through the 15th in Omaha, Nebraska. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has also joined the arguments for South Dakota, Arkansas and Missouri. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its Order with the anticipation that the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals case upholding the State’s right to define traditional marriage in April, with a final ruling further anticipated in late June.

“It remains the State’s position that the institution of marriage should be defined by the citizens of South Dakota and not the federal courts. It will be my intent to work with the Attorneys General of Missouri and Arkansas in defending our respective State Constitutions and statutes. A decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals may serve as non-binding precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court and will otherwise establish the federal law for this Circuit in matters not addressed by the United States Supreme Court,” said Marty Jackley.

28 Replies to “Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Joins South Dakota, Arkansas and Missouri Traditional Marriage Cases and Sets Expedited Argument”

  1. Anonymous

    Will Dicta return to explain why he is happy to violate the civil rights of thousands of Americans who love each other & wish to marry?

    Reply
    1. duggersd

      Who isn’t being allowed to marry? If they are of the same sex, they cannot marry each other, but they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Why is it gays are so interested in using the term “marriage”? What do they have against a “civil union” if it allows for all of the rights as a traditionally married couple? People laughed at me several years ago when this was coming up and I said that if they can change the meaning of the word “marriage” then it can mean anything. What legal argument can you make against polygamy? It is on the burner. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/marriage-equality-federal-judge-strikes-down-polygamy-ban-based-on-gay-rights/ And if you think that is far out, read this: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/11/what-its-like-to-date-a-horse.html

      Reply
      1. Dicta

        Civil unions don’t allow for all the rights marriage does, it’s in plain writing in SCOTUS’ DOMA opinion. Your hypothetical is pointless because it is impossible under current law.

        Also, anonymous: good to see you are still pursuing me. A little creepy, but also flattering.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Yeah Dicta, I find your views kinda creepy, but I’m willing to listen.

          Why do you oppose relative marriage anyway?

          Reply
          1. Dicta

            Just to make sure I am clear as to your thoughts, anon: supporting gay marriage but not incestuous marriage is creepy?

            And again, I made my stance against incestuous marriage and reasons for it clear numerous times in prior discussions. You keep attempting to pick the same fight over and over again, and it is a bit tired. If you have anything new to add to the discussion, I am willing to listen.

            Reply
            1. Anonymous

              1. So, you’re feelings of creepiness at relative marriage is a justification for denying marriage to relatives who wish to marry, but others’ feelings of creepiness at gay marriage is intolerant and unjustifiable?

              So yes, your feelings of creepiness at relative marriage is creepy–as if it’s any of your business what consenting adults do.

              2. If I recall (please correct me if not), you objected to relative marriage based on some concern about genetic defects in the children.
              Well, how is that concern even RELEVANT to relative marriage of homosexuals where there’s NO possibility of [natural] children??

              So, using your rationale, you would permit marriage of homosexual relatives, right?

              If your “creepy” feelings overwhelm you when it comes to homosexual relative marriage, then you must acknowledge the legitimacy of the objections of others’ feelings of creepiness when it comes to gay marriage, period,.

              The Equal Protection clause mandates similar treatment to similarly situated citizens, REGARDLESS of your feelings of creepiness (i.e., INTOLERANCE). If gays can marry (since procreation is no longer a legitimate state interest when limiting marriage to heteros), why can’t closely related gays?

              So, which it is, Dicta?

              Reply
        2. duggersd

          If they do not have the same rights, they can. And DOMA is not being enforced anyway. I do not know what hypothetical you are talking about, but whatever it is, if it is against the law the law can be changed. Regardless, even people who are in favor of gay marriage believe there should be some limits. Those limits in some cases cannot be defended as we see in that case where a judge declares a law against polygamy as unconstitutional. So, Dicta, or anybody else, are anti-polygamy laws denying anyone their civil or any other rights?

          Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Values such as heterosexual married couples cheating on each other? I could go on and on but I don’t want to keep you from fighting on.

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    it’s a diversion. settle it and move on. every time i hear both sides fighting i hear the crazy general in doctor strangelove saying ” i can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.” frustrating nonsense.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      “every time i hear both sides fighting i hear the crazy general in doctor strangelove saying ”

      That’s odd, because I didn’t hear that frustration when voters in 3/4 of the states voted to ban gay marriage. The gay marriage crowd didn’t just quit and go away. They fought in the most UNDEMOCRATIC way possible.

      Yet. you’re tired of the “fight”!

      crocodile tears?

      Reply
        1. Anonymous

          a big reason the u-s is a republic and not a democracy is to prevent the will of a public majority from running roughshod over individual rights and perogatives. in the larger scheme of things the energy and capital being expended to defend this line-in-the-sand is wasted. but that’s just my individual opinion which i have a right to express.

          Reply
        2. Anonymous

          If marriage was just a ceremony, I might agree.

          But the human, social ,and fiscal consequences of this are ALL of our business and worth debating & fighting for.

          Reply
        3. Anonymous

          If it were just about a ceremony, gay folks would have been satisfied a long time ago…but clearly it’s much more to them and should be to all of us.

          Reply
        4. Anonymous

          i have nooooo problem with a monogamous gay couple having the same rights as a monogamous heterosexual couple. that’s all the farther we need to expand anything. it would be a unique sanctioned relationship reserved for a monogamous couple, on an equal footing with the traditional u-s family structure, with all that that implies.

          Reply
      1. Anonymous

        you’re all missing a great opportunity for political judo here, i.e. falling into the punch and deflecting the energy. embrace the fellow monogamists. embrace the desire for monogamy and long-term committment implied by the marriage contract. it would be much easier to stand together in the name of monogamy and committment for all couples who want that, straight or gay, and not make a sectarian religious issue of it. enlist an ally in the protection of that institution from real destructive groups, those who would eliminate it altogether. christianity has a long history of embracing lesser forms of hypocrisy for the greater good. there’s a greater good here if you’d step back and see it.

        Reply
        1. Anonymous

          Or maybe greater problems as a result of these “changes”?

          And why the intolerance of “sectarian religious” views? Are they not legitimate concerns for many/most folks? You see, you either completely ignored their views or chose to diminish their views because you KNOW that gay marriage in wholly incompatible with mainstream Christianity. In other words, you fail to appreciate that Christians legitimately & sincerely view gay marriage as an ATTACK on marriage, not as a “protection of that institution” .

          “christianity has a long history of embracing lesser forms”??? Oh really? Wasn’t hypocrisy at the heart of nearly EVERYTHING Jesus attacked? Money changers in the temple? The invalid at the pool? The adulterous woman? WHEREVER Jesus encountered hypocrisy, He ATTACKED it, He did not “embraced” it?

          Where do you get your Christianity-lite views?

          Why “all couples” Why not embrace “all monogamous committed arrangements”?

          Reply
          1. Anonymous

            the u-s isn’t a theocracy, that’s the only reason i brought up sectarian religious views. so many heterosexual marriages are train wrecks, that i personally have come to the view that the thing that defines excellence in a marriage relationship isn’t whether one has mommy parts and one has daddy parts, it’s about pair-bonding. it’s about monogamy and fidelity and intimacy. as a practical matter, we’re probably decades past the point where the practice of homosexuality is going to return to the status of being outlawed. why NOT then turn and shore up and strengthen the values of monogamy and fidelity for both heterosexual and homosexual marriages. gay couples only see hypocrisy when they look at the track record of marriage on the heterosexual side and i think i agree with that position.

            i’ve read leviticus 20, and i know what leviticus 20:13 says, thanks. ‘vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord’ is my guiding principle. if gay people want to embrace fidelity and pair-bonding which normal humans crave, and want equal standing i say let’s talk about that. if however you want to return to leviticus and start stoning and killing people, there’s a great re-surging religion that’s growing by leaps and bounds on the planet now that you should look into.

            Reply
            1. Anonymous

              on a personal note, i believe churches should have full and total freedom to practice their faith as they are lead to practice it. they shouldn’t be forced to perform gay marriages against their creed. but churches also can go only so far as to exhort and argue and pray, they can’t assume moral responsibility for every molecule of the u-s if the courts go a different way. God will have to settle that one.

              Reply
            2. Anonymous

              “the u-s isn’t a theocracy,”

              Who said it was? Who wishes it to be so?

              “, that i personally have come to the view that the thing that defines excellence in a marriage relationship isn’t whether one has mommy parts and one has daddy parts,”

              Then your views are in conflict with centuries of thought on the matter. What make you think that your personal views are more legitimate that centuries of wisdom?

              ” it’s about pair-bonding. it’s about monogamy and fidelity and intimacy.”

              Why “pair”? Cannot multiples be monogamous and and intimate and committed to each other?

              “as a practical matter, we’re probably decades past the point where the practice of homosexuality is going to return to the status of being outlawed. ”

              Who wants it to? Gee, do you know what a strawman is?

              “why NOT then turn and shore up and strengthen the values of monogamy and fidelity for both heterosexual and homosexual marriages.”

              Mmm, because society has legitimate interest in shoring up and strengthening natural marriage, versus other types of arrangements where procreation is not a possibility.

              ” gay couples only see hypocrisy when they look at the track record of marriage on the heterosexual side and i think i agree with that position. ”

              So, gay couples desire to participate in that hypocrisy?

              “i’ve read leviticus 20, and i know what leviticus 20:13 says, thanks. ‘vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord’ is my guiding principle. if gay people want to embrace fidelity and pair-bonding which normal humans crave, and want equal standing i say let’s talk about that.”

              I’ve not read Leviticus lately, and cannot quote it.

              “if however you want to return to leviticus and start stoning and killing people, there’s a great re-surging religion that’s growing by leaps and bounds on the planet now that you should look into.”

              Strawman #3. You’re out.

              Please, before you post again, THINK about marriage…less feeling…

              and stop with the strawmen and red-herrings.

              Reply
  3. Anne Beal

    Most entertaining news story of the week, though, a KELO story, was a very dramatic account of married lesbians who lost all memory of the most important day of their lives the day they moved to South Dakota. The amnesia was total, and all the details of their wedding were swept away. They can’t remember a thing.

    It reminded me of the day after NSYNC appeared at the Sioux Empire Fair and my daughter was in tears because “it was the best day of my life and now it’s OVER!”
    I think she was about 14 at the time, but the two women in the KELO story appeared to be a lot older.

    Wait till they find out nobody in SD is allowed to file as married on state income tax returns. They’ll probably want to fix that next.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Yep.

      Married lesbians tend to originate in states where the progressives enjoy taxing the state income of the “rich” . And no doubt that these two desire to bring their “tax me as a married couple” crusade to SD.

      Wait until they find out that SD is REALLY different!

      Reply
  4. Anne Beal

    I wonder if those two young men, the ones charged with murder in Sioux Falls, ran off to Minnesota so they could get married and not be compelled to testify against each other?
    Anybody know? They are back in South Dakota now, but did they get married in Minnesota?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.