Obama-appointed judge: Same-sex marriage like interracial, ‘deeply rooted in nation’s history

US-Supreme-Court-PicAn Obama appointee to the federal bench ruled Friday that the right to same-sex marriage is “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” and as such is a fundamental right.

Judge Robert J. Shelby was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central Division of Utah in 2012 by President Obama, then confirmed by a Senate voice vote on Sept. 21, 2012, with neither debate nor objection, according to CNS News.

A federal district court is a court of original jurisdiction, but if its opinions are left unchallenged, they become the law for that district. Read the judge’s opinion here.

“To establish a new fundamental right, the court must determine that the right is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it] were sacrificed,” he wrote.

Shelby then applied the rule to same-sex marriage:

Because same-sex marriage has only recently been allowed by a number of states, the State argues that an individual’s right to marry someone of the same sex cannot be a fundamental right. But the Supreme Court did not adopt this line of reasoning in the analogous case of Loving v. Virginia. Instead of declaring a new right to interracial marriage, the Court held that individuals could not be restricted from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the race of their chosen partner. Similarly, the Plaintiffs here do not seek a new right to same-sex marriage, but instead ask the court to hold that the State cannot prohibit them from exercising their existing right to marry on account of the sex of their chosen partner.

The court attempted to liken interracial marriage to same-sex marriage.

“The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond,” Shelby wrote.

He added:

This right is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference.

And, as discussed above, this right is enjoyed by all individuals. If the right to same-sex marriage were a new right, then it should make new protections and benefits available to all citizens. But heterosexual individuals are as likely to exercise their purported right to same-sex marriage as gay men and lesbians are to exercise their purported right to opposite-sex marriage. Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of one right—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pushed through a Senate vote last month killing the filibuster rule when approving executive appointments. Three Democrats — Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan — opposed the change, as did every single GOP senator, according to USA Today.

It will now be much easier for the president to remake the judicial branch into his own likeness. So expect more senseless rulings like Shelby’s.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed
About Michael Dorstewitz

Mike has been with BizPac Review almost from the beginning. Email Mike at michael@bizpacreview and follow him on Twitter at @MikeBPR.

  • HonestToAtee

    And now I know why the Progressive are arguing that “Christians are bad for not accepting gay marriage and that they were bad for not accepting interracial marriage”. The only problem is that the latter was a racist activity not condoned by God whereas the 1st is a sin under Gods laws, this Judge is a Progressive and has twisted reality!

    • Marco Luxe

      1. You need to review your Bible. There are lot of biblical prohibition about not marrying into “foreign nations”.
      2. The Bible was used as a basis to oppose racial civil rights re: slavery to school integration to marriage. History shows us it was right to reject these biblical interpretations, as it will with your view too.

    • Neil Cameron

      “the latter was a racist activity not condoned by God”

      Absolute rubbish!
      The sin of miscegenation is also a sin under Gods laws.
      The only twisted reality is your own.

    • teila

      At no time should the rights of others be predicated on your or my religious beliefs. The moment you mention God or the Bible, you instantly invalidate your attemp at an unbiased argument. You’d consider it crazy if a “devil worshipper” quoted his bible and applied it to restrict your liberties and freedoms. You’re doing the exact same thing.

      • HonestToAtee

        At no time should anyone have to be forced to accept as normal that which is a sin no matter what the sin. If you want to to flop around in bed with a same sex partner in your own home be my guest, but don’t force others to accept that as normal societal behavior. I don’t carry a bible and I am not a Christian but I am still somewhat free and if I owned a Christian Bakery or was a Priest of a Church I don’t want to lose my rights to deny your lifestyle as wrong in my opinion. I don’t want a big Government with all of it’s force to “MAKE ME” bake a cake for your gay wedding or be forced to bless your gay marriage using the word of God. You Progressives are the ones up in peoples faces, you are the ones seeking this fight!

        • teila

          I assume that Gay people just like those seeking mixed marriages in the 50′s, couldn’t have cared less about you “accepting” them, but rather equal rights and protection under the LAW. Your personal view is hardly a blip on their radar.
          If you owned a Bakery (whether it’s Christian or not should not be material) and you open your business to, and advertise to, the general public, then you should be held to the same standard as other business. You can’t discriminate.
          No one stops you or I from having a licensed private bakery that does not advertise to the *general public* and only sells to vetted accounts. Look how easy that was.
          Otherwise what you have is what we did to Black Americans in the 30′s… our stores wouldn’t serve them; would lie and say “it’s not in stock”… then Mrs. White walks in and our parents (or grandparents) would sell her a case of the item Mrs. Black was just requesting.
          That’s fundamentally wrong, and the reason why the courts should have the common sense to decide the case is because so many prejudice American’s don’t have said common freaking sense because they’re blinded by their own prejudice then (with skin colour)… and today (with gender relationships).
          It’s sad, sad, sad, that it’s taken this long to get this far on such a simple human rights issue, which should be an embarrassment upon the very premise of freedom that we like to let eek out from the sides of our mouths when we talk that BS called Liberty, Freedom… and justice for all.
          ((chuckle)) total BS… worse than a corporate Mission Statement ;)

  • Noah Dawson

    Everyone has a choice, God gives us that so no one can take it away. If 2 people want to join their sin into an unholy matrimony then they can do so. But the government should not be allowed to Force any Religion to perform the union against the Religions doctrine. In doing so would they violate the individuals right to Freedom of Religion. If you think your a Christian and would willfully perform the union. Then you might want to reevaluate your faith, stop preaching and stop telling people that you are a Christian.

    • Shawn

      Thanks to the 1st amendment no religion will be forced to perform same-sex unions, everyone agrees on that, so what is your point here?

      • Utahlady

        …but they do have to bake cakes for gay weddings.

        • Shawn

          That are separate anti-discriminations laws which have been on the books for decades, and incindentally all happened cases in the news happened in states that still outlaw same-sex marriages

          • HonestToAtee

            Is lying something that comes that easily for you?

          • Shawn

            Since nothing I said in these comments is a lie it is not a something that matters for this discussion.

        • grannykate62

          Why or how did judge tell independent bakery he must bake for gays or cows or anybody, especially 6 mos after the event??

      • HonestToAtee

        B.S. So why are you Gays suing to force it then?
        Get your own Gay Church to do it and leave families the hell alone!

        http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/08/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out.html

        • Shawn

          Umm..that article refers to people in England that does not have our first amendment and does have a state religion. Not a good reference.

          • HonestToAtee

            Oh, that would NEVER happen here then!! I am so sure. Just like they haven’t sued the Christian Bakeries instead of just going to a non Christian Bakery! Check back in a year or so when it hits the online media! Because it will!
            The Gay Progressive movement is well funded and the war is on!

          • Shawn

            As I said in comments above the christain bakery lawsuits were part of existing anti-discrimination laws in states that at the time did not allow same-sex marriages. It is a differenet animal altogether.

          • HonestToAtee

            Private business owners have the right to refuse service to people, you seem to feel differently.

          • Shawn

            Yup I do. I believe discrimination in public accomidation is wrong and over 3 decades ago people who agreed with me passed that concept into law and the supreme court agreed when they upheld those laws. You have a business that serves the public, you can’t discriminate, simple as that.

          • HonestToAtee

            You should NOT be forced to do something that is against your religious beliefs period!
            Why don’t you homosexuals go to Muslim Bakeries and have them bake a cake for a gay wedding, or see if they will marry you in their Mosques!
            Chicken?

          • Shawn

            well lets see, I am straight for the record, but any business has to follow the law, muslim or otherwise.

          • HonestToAtee

            As I thought, too chicken to try it!

          • Shawn

            Acutally, first you have to find a muslim bakery near me before I could attempt to do that and then you need to supply a same-sex couple that wants to marry, after that sure I will.

          • teila

            I believe in “choice”. Meaning if you are a pharmacist, and some 19 yr/old on Spring Break comes into a private religiously affiliated drugstore wanting the “morning after pill”, then it’s reasonable that you, at the Catholic Drug store won’t provide such. No biggie.

            However, I think physicians/pharmacists working in a public capacity (e.g. county hospital, or public pharmacy) should be fired on the spot for refusing to work within the scope of their license only because of their personal beliefs. I would fire (aka “find a reason to fire”) the person irrespective of any law giving professional leeway based on personal beliefs and add their name to one or more of the many blacklists used in industry.

            Can’t check your personal beliefs at the door when you come to work? I can respect that, but you can’t work here.

          • teila

            Amazing how many people just don’t get it. These same people would whine if they went to their physicians and OB/GYN collectively stopped delivering babies unless you had $65,000 cash…. or if physicians refused to treat people with mousy brown hair… or if airlines stopped carrying female passengers weighing over 150lb… Or if makeup and the better clothing was only sold to “pretty” people.

            If a person wants to discriminate, then they simply refrain from public enterprise. Too easy for most reasonably intelligent adults to understand. The scary thing here is that some of these prejudicial people will serve on a jury, and have trouble with basic concepts of “relevance”.

          • Shawn

            Just for added reference the historic churches in england used by the church of england are actually maintained and at least partially funded by the governement and are technically public property as opposed to the churches in the US which are all private property and separate from the goverernement.

          • HonestToAtee

            Hence Obama going after the Church and the Nuns to impose the will of the Progressives!

          • Shawn

            Actually, the Nuns only have to sign a form acknowledging that they are exempted from the contriception mandate. Not exactly a push to impose will. As a side note to claim a tax exemption for churchs they also have to file paperwork. Governement bureacracy sucks but it has been that way since before Rome and not something to blame Obama for.

          • HonestToAtee

            You really should stop getting your info from Obama TV because it is more than that, it is a concession by the Nuns accepting Gays basically and they should NEVER do it!!!
            And stick this big Gov’t where it don’t shine pal!
            This was America until you Commies took control!
            If we were still free Churchs and Nuns would not need a “tax exemption” for what was always privately donated.
            Damned Progressives!

          • Shawn

            You really do need to read a book on governement and civics because Obamas policies are the most capitalistic of any of the last 5 presidents. Communists and socialists hate him more than you do and progressives are annoyed that he has been too regressive. Also I get my news from every source I can and look up the facts as best I can. That you use your existing bias to ignore everything you don’t agree with doesn’t change the fact you have no actual understanding of the topic involved.

          • HonestToAtee

            Yes, you are a lying Progressive and this statement just proves my point as I knew I had you tagged!
            Obama has been the most Communistic/Fascist/Marxist POTUS EVER in our history. He has stomped on the Constitution and he has committed treason by financing and arming our enemies!
            CPUSA is in a love affair with him and has supported this guy all along. As a matter of fact Obama belonged to the “New Party” which I am sure you are aware of as a Commie yourself!

          • Shawn

            As I said you really need to talk to actual communists and socialists, or at least learn the basic concepts behind those theories. Your ignorence is very telling. Being uninformed hurts America just as much as bad policy and you really need to get informed, do research, and read some books.

          • HonestToAtee

            The problem you have is that you are a product of the media, I did my research and I am only speaking from knowledge of the facts, you have only disputed everything I say with silly exaltation’s of my need to learn but you have not proffered any actual facts here.
            I will say this again and then say goodbye to you, OBAMA WAS AND IS A COMMUNIST, HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE NEW PARTY, HIS MENTOR WAS FRANK MARSHAL DAVIS. Look it up for yourself!

          • Shawn

            See I do look up actual facts but I look up facts on actual policies and laws that the different politians support. It is the actions and laws that matter, not ideological beliefs. You have not produced any actual facts either to support your claims because you have yet to cite anything he actually said or did that are communist.

          • teila

            What is your highest level of education?

          • teila

            Correct.

            Which most adults would tend to gather, even after only watching only a few weeks of Euro news. As “The Church” is mentioned in different context when compared to churches in the U.S..

            The same way in the U.S., an alarm should come on in an adults head when they keep hearing the NY “Supreme Court” mentioned so much… a light bulb should come on and compel the person to research further.

    • Neil Cameron

      Babbling your fear that something might happen to your church does not mean it is happening to your church and it does not justify banning those not of your church from doing it.

    • SpeakTruth

      Although some of your post was gibberish, I think I was able to figure it out. Sometimes I think you guys make up things to be frightened of.

    • Shawn

      Just a BTW…no where in the bible does it actually say that being gay or haing homosexual sex is a sin. Even leviticus 18:22 which is the closest to doing that is a mistranslation. It says: (a man) (not) (with an adult male) (lie) (laying places of) (women), (ritually unclean) (it is). Rearranging for proper english grammer and word order you get:
      A man will not lie with a man in the beds of women, it is unclean. So the sin is more about location than the act.

      • Rob

        So I guess your a biblical scholar?

        • Shawn

          I would not say that but I do this thing called research and look up what the actual hebrew words mean, the grammer and useage of said words, and compare what those words mean in other passages of the bible to help understand context. I learned a long time ago that blindly trusting my paster regarding the meaning of biblical passages was not a good idea considering how wrong the translations were in the english version he used let alone the sometimes off the wall interpretations he made off those bad translations.

          • grannykate62

            And pastors and priests actually study Latin, Greek, Hebrew for years in seminary

          • Shawn

            Actually most pastors I have met did not study the languages in seminary and would have no clue what the text says in the original languages, and while all the priest I know did study latin, latin is not the original language for any biblical text.

          • teila

            That is horribly incorrect.

          • Namyriah

            As if some obnoxious carpet sniffer knows anything about religion.

          • teila

            I applaud you on your willingness to do your own research. Most people take what comes from the pulpit as “right” by default.

        • Namyriah

          No, he’s a dumb gay activist (redundant) who trolls mostly Christian sites and spreads his nonsense around. Not only is he not a scholar, he’s like most of these trolls, probably never even been in the same room with a Bible, they pick up their “facts” on the Bible from some gay websites.

    • teila

      One can be a Christian and perform same sex marriages, just like one can be a Christian and continue to sin.

      You’re one of the hypocrites that Jesus was speaking of when he basically said “hey look, you aren’t qualified to judge another persons relationship with God, especially when you’re just as sinful as the person you aren’t qualified to judge.. You wanna cast rocks in light of your own sins, or let me handle it?”

      I agree with you that the Gov., shouldn’t be able to force any religion to marry same sex, interracial, rich with poor, green and purple, etc.., but churches muddled that up when they wanted tax exempt status and grossly abuse it.

      The take away here is that if churches paid taxes like everyone else, who they did or didn’t marry wouldn’t be an issue.

      • Namyriah

        I wish you lefties would get your facts straight about just what Jesus said. One minute you say he never spoke of homosexuality at all, the next minute you say he specifically spoke out against “hypocrites” who condemned gay marriage. Make up your minds – or, get a mind, then make it up.

        • teila

          I wasn’t relating to anything of the sort. What I was talking about was Jesus effectively saying that If you have sinned, don’t act like you’re worthy to pick up the first stone and throw it. In quick order he showed people how hypocritical they were… and still are.
          People in Washington cheating left and right on their wives, but yip yapping about preserving the sanctity of “holy” matrimony. Give it a rest.
          I don’t see how Steve and Steve hook up, but it’s non of my business if they the world differently than I. I shouldn’t have the collective power (via vote) to deny them what should be a basic right in the first place. I don’t find it appealing to see two dudes (or women) lip-locked, but I’m bigger than most people and have enough scruples to know that I don’t have to gawk at stuff I don’t find appealing and find something else to look at- however as a human, I wish ANY couple the best that marriage can offer.

  • gaylib

    Did you think it might be important to point out that Shelby was recommended to Obama by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)? Nah. You teabags never let things like facts get in the way of your never ending outrage.

    • proudwhite

      Like that “tea bag” on your QUEER dad’ chin?

    • grannykate62

      Watch the teabag comment scumbag. Hatch is a RINO democrat, don’t you know that?

  • Hargraves Ian

    One of the first judges to get his faggot arse kicked out when republicans get control.

    • SpeakTruth

      Hey, Genius, did you not read the part that he is a Presidential appointed US District judge? Or do you just not understand what that means?

      • grannykate62

        “Article III federal judges” (as opposed to judges of some courts with special jurisdictions) serve “during good behavior” (often paraphrased as appointed “for life”). Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office. Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment.[1]
        Judges can be removed from office.

        • SpeakTruth

          Yes, you are correct, Granny. I was merely pointing out to the kind gentleman that it would take a bit more for Republicans to kick him out of office. I appreciate your help in this matter.

        • reinhold

          I like the part about Judges hold their seats only until they die.

  • Thomas J.Stratford

    “This right is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference” Another idiot ruling! Now the same legal argument can be used to legalize the marriages of consenting adults that are siblings, and nieces/uncles, etc, etc. Don’t think so? Go research Germany and their courts grappling with the brother-sister marriages.

    • teila

      Nice try? Actually a poor attempt since one has nothing to do with the other. Same sex couples cannot procreate and produce genetically abnormal offspring which is a major reason why such relationships (married or not) are illegal in the U.S..

      You don’t have to be too swift to understand that the ruling is not only sound, but near basic common sense to anyone willing to set aside their personal and religious beliefs.

      Even you should be able to grasp the fact that a same sex pairing does not even potentially yield the same genetic problems as sister and brother unions… and in light of that fact, aside from your personal or religious beliefs, what’s it to you if two people of the same sex marry, since their inimate relationship is legal anyway; unlike a sister and brother pairing.

      So let’s hear your reasoning based on law, as opposed to personal stuff, why the U.S. Government should discriminate against same sex marriages and how it isn’t the same type of discrimination that those seeking mixed marriage experienced not all that long ago.

  • grannykate62

    WHAT??????

  • reinhold

    Judge Shelby well knows the differencebetween a penis and an vagina and the necessity for these to procreate children. He lies.
    While purporting to defend individual rights and having a duty to do so this judge like most judiciary say one thing and do another.

    Whether a State has the Right and Duty to make and enforce law to protect the sanctity marriage is absolute. A renegade federal judge shall not abrogate that Right and Duty. The declaration (bogus order) by Judge Shelby is VOID, ab initio.

    From this juncture, We The People shall Rise Up and using any and all necessary force to suppress the Current Insurrection.

    IT TAKES A CIVILIAN MILITIA

    • teila

      You, nor any particular state should have the power to enforce your verision of the “sanctity of marriage” (a meaningless phrase). Your argument is no different than those who believe races shouldn’t mix. You sound like one of the many USA flag waving hypocrites who proclaim that our military is protecting our “freedoms”, then you turn right around and want to impose limitations on fellow Americans based on YOUR interpretation of what a marriage should be.

      You’re a slap in the face to military vets, and an embarrassment to the American flag.

      Let me guess… You think a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a Black American’s place is wherever Whites aren’t right?

      Judge Shelby is able to set aside any personal biases in order to make a just decision. If you don’t want to marry a person of the same sex (just like I wouldn’t) then don’t. That’s your personal business; however your personal business and your personal religious beliefs and your personal definition of marriage should not have any bearing on the personal freedoms of others.

      • reinhold

        Literacy would help you a great deal. All Law consists of specific ideas expressed by words. Word all have definite meaning regardless of abuse (improper use). The term, sanctity means: “ultimate importance and inviolability.” The definite meaning of the term “marriage” is set forth in law. NONE have the authority to abrogate Law by abuse of words and making a declaration that abrogates the TERMS OF LAW.

        marriage |ˈmarij|noun1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typicallyrecognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
        If a man wishes to marry man. The Law prohibits this! Neither shall a woman marry a woman.

        The Judicial Office is expressly prohibited from making or abrogating any Law. That power is vested only in the Legislature.

        I am a military vet. US Army Regular. I defend veterans and civilians. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. It is my sacred (sanctified) Duty to defend these people an their rights. None have the authority, power or right to abrogate the sanctity of the Right to Sanctified and Legal Marriage. To compel acceptance to disparage this Right is
        prohibited by the Creator and by Law.

        The practice of miscegenation is prohibited by Law. Race mixing destroys race. The Almighty Creator made all races. What He has created we shall not allow anyone put asunder. See: Phinehas Priest.

        That the Legislature ,the Judiciary and the Executive Offices are complicit in establishing public policy in order to abrogate Law resides well within my “logic.” that is predicated on Reason and Law.

        Any nation shall flourish that is a nation of Law not of men. You endorse the rule of men not of Law. You err by concluding that I disparage the Negro. He is my neighbor like I am your’s.

        The Right to vote does not include the right to abrogate Law by complicity.

        Concerning my view of women see: Proverbs 31 and the Commandments.

        No man including Judge Shelby has the power and authority to disparage marriage by unlawfully converting that sanctified institution to an endorsement of Sodomy!

        Your personal business has no right to abrogate my personal business. I claim the Right to Sanctified Marriage. None Shall trespass that Sanctified Institution.

        Your freedom ends where you intrude on my freedom.
        .

        • teila

          Two gay people getting married does nothing to impede upon your, or my freedom to only take a heterosexual mate of the opposite sex.

          Your particular God’s law should have no more credence than anyone else’s God’s law when it comes to deciding what should and shouldn’t be lawful for others. Your particular God’s word isn’t the barometer which we should measure the distance of another persons freedoms or liberty.

          “Sanctity of marriage” – a tired buzz phrase thats based on the fact that most Americans think that their view of marriage is the right one, when in fact, the licensing part of marriage should be open to any two consenting adults (the most important part when it comes to taxes, insurance, etc.)… all the other stuff should be between you, your church, and whatever God YOU believe in.

          • reinhold

            Homosexuality: Nothing gay about it.

            “telia” your lack of literary skill cannot grant you license to steal.

            Declaring that “homosexual marriage” is the equivalent to Heterosexual Marriage is merely a contrivance to obtain the Rights and benefits of Heterosexual families.

            Advocates of Sodomy like you pretend that the demand to tolerate Sodomy is altruistic or based on some bogus morality. Were the premise honest the homosexuals and their advocates would not claim that Christian Doctrine advocates Sodomy and homosexual families! Such patent insolence!

            To preserve freedom for all the Sodmites shall not trespass. Homosexuals must declare their own Rights and obtain their own benefits. Non shall compel another to disparage the Right to the express sanctity of Marriage. Read agajn the definition of the legal term,”marriage.”Nothing homosexual about it.

            But of course the requirement to license a marriage is bogus to begin with. A license purports to grant permission to act in a manner that would otherwise be unlawful. Marriage is not a Civil Institutions. The While asserting false claim of”Separation of Church and State the Renegade Legislature intrudes on the Sanctified Institutions of the Christian Church.

            CHURCH (definition)
            BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY

            CHURCH: In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive preserve and propagate His doctrines and ordinances.

            You may advance your notion that men can rule The People but the Almighty Creator shall not rule. All that have attempted this have failed utterly. You too shall fail. Stand down or fall where you stand.