Twitter icon

Facebook icon

About this site
About us
Our statement of belief
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links

Recommended books

Visitors' donated essays
Our forum
New essays
Other site features
Hot, controversial topics
Vital notes

World religions
Definition of Christianity
 Shared beliefs
 Handling change
 Bible topics
 Bible inerrancy
 Bible harmony
 Bible Interpreting
 Individuals in the Bible
 Beliefs & creeds
 Da Vinci code
 Revelation & 666
WICCA & Witchcraft
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Compare Faiths

Non-theistic beliefs

About all religions
Main topics
Basic information
Gods and Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt & security
Confusing terms
End of the World?
True religion?
Seasonal events
More information

Morality & ethics
Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious freedom
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
10 Commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Death penalty
Environment/Climate change

Gay marriages

Human rights
Gays in military
Sex & gender
Spanking kids
Same-Sex marriages
Stem cells
Women's rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Religious Tolerance logo

Same-sex marriage (SSM) in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio & Tennessee

Part 1: The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
rules in favor of marriage INequality, in cases
involving Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio & Tennessee.
Reactions to the ruling.

horizontal rule

This topic is continued from a previous essay dealing
with SSM in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee.

horizontal rule

2004 to 2014-NOV: Brief review of the path towards marriage equality in the U.S.:

  • On 2004-MAY-17, as a result of a Massachusetts lawsuit "Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health," the first same-sex couples in the U.S. were able to legally marry. Gradually, a few additional states across the country also attained marriage equality, by rulings of state or federal courts, or by state legislative actions, or by voters during citizen initiatives.

  • On 2013-JUN-26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case Windsor v. United States. They found Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- to be unconstitutional. As a result, legally married same-sex couples, and their children, were able to tap into the 1,138 federal marriage plans, benefits, and protections just as opposite-sex married couples can. As a result of this decision:

    • The list of benefits received by married same-sex couples were increased considerably. Previous to Windsor, they would typically receive only a few hundred state benefits plus the intangible benefit of having their relationship recognized as a marriage by their state.

    • The justices had found that the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supported marriage equality. Those clauses require federal, state, and local governments to treat people equally; by extension, they must also treat couples equally. The result was that over the next year an a half, dozens of judges in state and federal courts used the high Court's reasoning. They ruled in favor of same-sex marriage and overturned same-sex marriage bans. This list included federal District Courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

  • By 2014-NOV-05, about sixteen months after the Windsor decision, more than 50 state courts, U.S. District courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal had issued rulings about SSM bans in various states. Only two found the bans to be constitutional. 1 The rest found them unconstitutional and void because they violate the due process and/or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

Ruling by the 6th Circuit Court on same-sex marriage:

On 2014-NOV-06, The 6th Circuit Court issued its ruling in the case DeBoer v. Snyder. It is a combination of six cases from federal courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Some plaintiffs are single and want to marry in their state. Others have been legally married out-of-state and want their own state to recognize their marriages.

The vote by the three-judge panel was by the narrowest of possible margins: 2:1. The two judges who were nominated by Republican presidents voted to uphold the ban. The one judge who was nominated by Democratic president voted against the ban and in favor of marriage equality.

The court overturned each of the District Court rulings. It was the fifth circuit court to rule on same-sex marriage, and the first to uphold marriage bans against same-sex engaged couples. Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote the ruling, which was based on the following beliefs:

  • When the Fourteenth Amendment was written, its authors did not anticipate that it would be used in their future to argue in favor of marriage equality.

  • A rational basis exists for states to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

  • The laws banning same-sex marriages are not based on animus -- intense dislike, hatred, and animosity -- towards non-heterosexuals.

  • There is no fundamental right for one person to marry another of the same gender.

  • Judicial heightened scrutiny does not apply to same-sex marriage bans, as it does -- for example -- in laws discriminating on the basis of race.

Judge Sutton, writing against marriage equality, said that the question is not so much whether marriage equality will become universal, but when. He wrote:

"When the courts do not let people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way."

Dissenting Judge, Martha Craig Daughtrey, wrote:

"The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise – that the question before is who should decide – and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism."

Webmaster's comment: (bias alert):

IMHO, the basic question is whether fundamental human rights -- like the right to marry -- should be universal, or should they only be given to groups that are approved of by the majority of voters. If the latter, than all disfavored groups can expect to be be denied human rights. That effect is commonly referred to as the "Tyranny of the Majority." Preventing it was a major concern of the founders of the United States. My personal view is that such human rights should be taken out of the hands of the public and recognized as being guaranteed by the state and federal Constitutions.

By 2014-NOV-06, same-sex couples could marry in the District of Columbia and in any one of 33 states. This grew to 34 states on NOV-13 with the addition of Kansas. But there are still 16 states that have not yet attained marriage equality. This situation is untenable. Marriage is generally considered to be a human right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and yet one group of couples can marry in some states, but not in others.

The U.S. Supreme Court was faced with this problem in 1967 when it tackled the topic of interracial marriage. At the time, about 72% of American adults opposed interracial marriage and 48% even felt that marrying a person of another race should be prosecuted as a criminal act. The high court's decision in Loving v. Virginia was based on the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that the federal Constitution placed marriage equality based on race out of the control of public opinion. They might decide the same for equality based on sexual orientation in the relatively near future.

horizontal rule

Sponsored link:

horizontal rule

Reactions to the decision by the 6th Circuit Court:

  • Michael Premo of Why Marriage Matters Ohio -- a pro-marriage equality group -- said:

    "We are disappointed with this decision but ultimately we think it will be good news because we will finally get the national resolution that we need to get from the Supreme Court. They won’t be able to avoid the issue any longer."

  • Phil Burress is president of Citizens for Conservative Values. This is the Cincinnati-based group that promoted the successful 2004 amendment to the Ohio state Constitution which banned same-sex marriage. He concluded that the basic issue is one of states' rights to issue licenses. Referring to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution -- commonly referred to as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" -- he noted that individual states are required to recognize one another’s licenses as long as there is no strong public policy against such recognition. He said:

    "You can’t take your concealed carry license, your hunting license or your attorney license from Ohio to another state because there’s a strong public policy against it. They don’t have to recognize it. And that’s what we have here. There is no such thing as a national marriage license. These are all states rights, and the states should be deciding this, not the federal government, and especially not the courts."

  • Rob Nichols, spokesperson for Ohio Governor John Kasich (R). He said:

    "The governor agrees with and supports the court’s decision."

  • Attorney Pierre Bergeron, a blogger of Sixth Circuit cases, said:

    "I think the court is really saying the [U.S.] Supreme Court has not preordained this and the Supreme Court has not yet created a constitutional right for gay marriage. And if the Supreme Court is going do it, the Supreme Court is going to do it — not the Sixth Circuit."

  • Ohio State Representative John Becker (R) said:

    "This is an issue of state sovereignty, and whether the people of Ohio have the right to set our laws and policies. The problem is judicial activism, which attempts to undo the will of the people. Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit has restored the rule of law, at least for now.”

horizontal rule

This topic continues in the next essay.

horizontal rule

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

  1. "Marriage litigation at the 6th Circuit," Freedom to Marry, at:
  2. "January 20, 2014: Anzalone Liszt Grove Research," Freedom to Marry, at
  3. "Growing support for marriage in every region of the Country, Freedom to Marry, at:
  4. Linda Blackford, "Majority of Kentucky voters oppose same-sex marriage, but opposition appears to be softening," Lexington Herald-Leader, 2014-FEB-07, at:
  5. Mike Wynn, "Poll: Opposition to gay marriage waning in Ky.," USA Today, 2014-JUL-29, at:
  6. Jonathan Oosting, "MSU survey: Majority of Michigan residents support gay marriage as judge considers ban," MLive, 2014-MAR-01, at:
  7. "Clinton leads Republicans in Michigan," Public Policy Polling, 2014-APR-09, at:
  8. Robert P. Jones, "A Shifting Landscape," Public Religion Research Institute, 2014-FEB-26, at:
  9. "Results of SurveyUSA election poll #21223,"Survey USA, 2014-APR-29, at:
  10. "MTSU Polls Public Opinion on Guns, Gay Marriage, Medical Marijuana, Obamacare, Abortion, WIGS," TNReport, 2014-FEB-13, at:
  11. Dale Carpenter, "Two more same-sex marriage cases reach the Supreme Court," The Washington Post, 2014-NOV-18, at:
  12. Dale Carpenter, "Inverted equal protection: same-sex marriage at the Sixth Circuit (Part I, originalism)," The Washington Post, 2014-NOV-14, at:
  13. "All Four States in Sixth Circuit Have Filed Appeals to Supreme Court," Human Rights Campaign, 2014-NOV-17, at:

Site navigation:

Home > Religious info. > Basic > Marriage > Same-sex marriage> same-sex marriage sub-menu > Kentucky > here

Home > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality> Same-sex marriage >same-sex marriage sub-menu> Kentucky > here

Home > Religious info. > Basic > Marriage > Same-sex marriage> same-sex marriage sub-menu > Michigan > here

Home > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality> Same-sex marriage >same-sex marriage sub-menu> Michigan > here

Home > Religious info. > Basic > Marriage > Same-sex marriage> same-sex marriage sub-menu > Ohio > here

Home > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality> Same-sex marriage >same-sex marriage sub-menu> Ohio > here

Home > Religious info. > Basic > Marriage > Same-sex marriage> same-sex marriage sub-menu > Tennessee> here

Home > "Hot" topics > Homosexuality> Same-sex marriage >same-sex marriage sub-menu> Tennessee here

Copyright © 2014 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally posted: 2014-NOV-19
Last updated 2017-JUL-31
Author: Bruce A Robinson
line.gif (538 bytes)
Sponsored link

horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or the same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee menu, or choose:

Custom Search

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Hot, controversial topics

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.








Sponsored links