Federal Judge Paul J. Kelly Rejects Same Sex “Marriage”

Spoiler alert: The ruling was not against the redefinition of marriage, but does mark the first time a federal judge has broken with liberal judges to side with state bans on sodomite redefinitions of marriage. In a case before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. wrote an incredible dissent to the majority opinion in which he said that overriding the will of the people in state banned redefinitions of marriage “turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.” Judge Kelly seems to side with our own Publius Huldah in rejecting the idea that the 14th Amendment can be abused to bring in all sorts of perversion to society such as abortion (murder of the unborn), sexual orientation and redefining marriage to include sodomites.

The Associated Press’ Nicholas Riccardi reports:

Wednesday’s gay marriage ruling contained two historic firsts: It was the first appellate decision for gay marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Law exactly one year ago, and it also marked the first time since then a federal judge has argued for keeping a state ban on same sex marriages.

Trending: Duck Duck Go’s far-left political donations and abuse of user data have users FUMING

Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. was in the minority in his opinion as the two other judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals panel found the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of gay couples to marry. Kelly has broken the string of 16 state and federal judges who sided with gay marriage advocates in cases across the country over the past year.

take our poll - story continues below

Would You Vote for Trump If He Runs In 2024?

  • Would You Vote for Trump If He Runs In 2024?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

There is no question that the court sided with sodomites on this issue. As the Washington Post reports:

The three-judge panel in Denver ruled 2-1 that states cannot deprive people of the fundamental right to marry simply because they choose a partner of the same sex.

The court dismissed as “wholly illogical” the notion that allowing gays to wed could somehow undermine traditional marriage.

The decision by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down Utah’s gay marriage ban. It becomes law in the six states covered by the 10th Circuit: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But the panel immediately put the ruling on hold pending an appeal.

However, consider that Kelly is a George W. Bush appointee and that he presided over the case of the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. His opinion is not something to be kept in the background, nor is the idea of what traditional or biblical marriage.

Judge Kelly believes that the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, and as such “that power is reserved to the States, albeit consistent with federal constitutional guarantees.”

“And while the Court has recognized a fundamental right to marriage, every decision vindicating that right has involved two persons of the opposite gender,” he wrote. “Indeed, the Court has been less than solicitous of plural marriages or polygamy.”

Kelly, 73, wrote in his dissent on Wednesday, “”If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head.”

He then makes an important point that I made in a recent article, when he spoke about the important social function of marriage. He wrote, “Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this (including whether to extend marriage to same-gender couples) is inevitable. And given the recent advent of same-gender marriage, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2689, it is hardly remarkable that a state might codify what was once implicit.”

Judge Kelly then points to where the Supreme Court has already spoken to the issue of marriage in the case of Baker v. Nelson. Kelly claims the dismal of the court on the subject, which the Supreme Court did following its ruling on DOMA, “should foreclose the Plaintiff’s claims, at least in this court.”

Kelly also took on the issue of “Equal Protection-Gender Discrimination.” Judge Kelly wrote, “Plaintiffs argue that defining marriage to exclude same-gender unions is based upon gender stereotyping where ‘the law presumed women to be legally, socially, and financially dependent upon men.'”

However, Kelly then appealed to the Utah Constitution, writing “Utah’s constitutional and statutory provisions, Utah Const. art. I, § 29 and Utah Code §§ 30-1-2(5), 30-1-4.1, enacted in 1977 and 2004, simply define marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman and do not recognize any other domestic union, i.e., same-gender marriage. They apply to same-gender male couples and same-gender female couples alike.”

Jeff Allen at Barbwire comments:

“That such a decision will inevitably usher our nation down the slippery slope of deviancy was likewise emphasized when Judge Kelly continued, ‘Were marriage a freestanding right without reference to the parties, Utah would be hard-pressed to prohibit marriages for minors under 15 and impose conditions for other minors.’ And the judge’s insightful assertion is as prescient as it is perceptive; The same legal reasoning that is currently being employed by the ‘gay marriage’ advocates and their attorneys will certainly be utilized, and in fact already has been, to argue for polygamy and lowering the age of consent in an insidious effort to legalize pedophilia.”

Most importantly, as Riccardi noted in his AP column, “The dissent heartened gay marriage opponents, who saw a hope of ending their year-long losing streak and puncturing the aura of inevitability that now surrounds same-sex marriage.”

Kelly went on for several pages to point out numerous other issues, including due process. However, it seems he is the only judge that actually looked to the law as a basis for his dissent from the majority opinion. He looked to the Constitution of Utah, which is the law in the state.

For this, I applaud Judge Kelly. In a time when too many men are squeamish about standing up and calling the sodomite perversion “marriage,” this man shows honor and integrity in upholding the law against such things. Well done Judge Kelly!

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like
Previous Claudio Grass: All the Governments are Trying to Get Away From Cash
Next Muslims and Buddhists Work Together to Eliminate 1500 Christians

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don't see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Sorry. No data so far.