6th Circuit's Judge Jeffrey Sutton: Modern Day Segregationist?

Sutton - Is he a racist too?

Reactions to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling upholding marriage bans continue and outside of knuckle dragging Christofascists circles, none are very favorable towards Judge Jeffrey Sutton who not surprisingly is a George W. "Chimperator" Bush appointee. As previously notes, Sutton's "let the people decide" analysis would have been very popular in the South in the 1950's and 1960's and one can only speculate that we would still have segregated schools and bans on interracial marriage if Sutton's approach had been applied by the Supreme Court in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and/or Loving v. Virginia.   Sutton clearly underscores the dangers of placing a cretin in the White House.   Here's one good take down of Judge Sutton:

Well, the media reports are correct. Sutton's lengthy introduction, before the analysis: "And all come down to the same question: Who decides? Is this a matter that the National Constitution commits to resolution by the federal courts or leaves to the less expedient, but usually reliable, work of the state democratic processes?" 

 Sutton did make two cute rhetorical moves with Loving. First, he insisted that the Court assumed marriage only encompassed opposite-sex unions, since the Court did not say differently and because the couple in Loving where not same-sex. Second is this: "Loving addressed, and rightly corrected, an unconstitutional eligibility requirement for marriage; it did not create a new definition of marriage." But this seems too clever by a half--all definitions of a thing are based on eligibility requirements for the definition of that thing. Is Sutton really suggesting that Loving would have come out differently if, instead of the law saying "If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony," it said "marriage shall only be between two white persons or two black persons"? 

Say this: Sutton hit every possible argument and issue surrounding marriage equality (although he soft-pedaled his discussion of the "marriage is for men and the women they accidentally knock-up" argument). So the opinion presents a good vehicle for thorough consideration (and reversal).

Finally, a question: Judge Daughtrey in her dissent described at length the facts underlying the claim by the Michigan plaintiffs. Under Michigan law, unmarried couples cannot jointly adopt, which means only one parent is the legal parent of the child and there is no guarantee that, if the legal parent dies, the child will be allowed to stay with the other, non-legal parent. But that imposes huge financial costs on the state, if it has to bring that child into the foster care system, not to mention the human and social cost to the child and the entire system. But if the ban on same-sex marriage imposes such costs, doesn't that render it irrational, if not based on animus?

Of course, all of us know that animus IS the real motivation.  Wonkette has an even less kind analysis:

Let’s skip ahead now to the lone dissenting voice of reason, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, who politely points out that, ahem, that argument is some kind of bullcrud:

There is not now and never has been a universally accepted definition of marriage. In early Judeo-Christian law and throughout the West in the Middle Ages, marriage was a religious obligation, not a civil status. Historically, it has been pursued primarily as a political or economic arrangement. Even today, polygamous marriages outnumber monogamous ones—the practice is widespread in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, especially in countries following Islamic law, which also recognizes temporary marriages in some parts of the world. In Asia and the Middle East, many marriages are still arranged and some are even coerced.

But oh well, guess the majority forgot about that, because it sure does insist — over and over and over again — that up until about a decade ago, there was one definition of marriage, everywhere, for all time. And that is why the real question is whether the court has the authority to overrule The Voice Of The People, when The People have been homophobic bigots for all these millennia.