I'm getting that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Since when are human rights up for a vote? One of the judges said it was strange that gay couples aren't showing more patience?

Same-sex marriage hearings: Judges argue whether court or ballot box is proper place to settle issue
Decision here will have big impact nationwide
By: Associated Press , WCPO Staff
Posted: 3:06 PM, Aug 6, 2014
Updated: 12 mins ago

(excerpt)
...Jeffrey S. Sutton said the best way to win the hearts and minds of Americans on the issue would be the democratic process.

Sutton peppered attorneys with the question and said it was strange that the same-sex couples fighting statewide bans weren't showing more patience.

"I would have thought the best way to get respect and dignity is through the democratic process," Sutton said. "Nothing happens as quickly as we'd like it. ... I'm not 100 percent sure it's the better route for the gay rights community."

Sutton, a George W. Bush nominee, and two other judges from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in six cases from Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee in the biggest such session on the issue so far. The cases pit states' rights and traditional, conservative values against what plaintiffs' attorneys say is a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution....

MORE at http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/same-sex-marriage-hearings-prompt-tight-security-at-federal-courthouse-in-cincinnati

I wonder if any of his friends are there?

I'm trying to follow the latest news via local news outlets in Cincy.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/same-sex-marriage-hearings-prompt-tight-security-at-federal-courthouse-in-cincinnati

This is what we're up against.

Supreme Court Unanimously Spanked Sixth Circuit Health Care Judge For Manipulating Law To Benefit GOP
by Ian Millhiser Posted on May 11, 2011

(excerpt)
...In 2008, just weeks before the presidential election, the Ohio Republican Party sued the state seeking to prevent as many as 200,000 registered voters from having their votes counted. Judge Sutton wrote an opinion that siding with the state GOP.

Three days later, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed Sutton in a rare two-page order. That very brief order rested largely on a 2001 decision called Alexander v. Sandoval — and the attorney who successfully convinced the Supreme Court to decide Sandoval the way it did was none other than Jeffrey Sutton.

Indeed, before Sutton became a judge, Sutton was one of the nation’s leading advocates for conservative states-rights positions and for cutting off ordinary Americans’ access to courts. Sutton devoted much of his career to preventing people with disabilities, religious minorities and even children who are illegally deprived of Medicaid coverage from holding states accountable in federal court. Sutton also served as an officer in the conservative Federalist Society’s Federalism and Separation of Powers practice group.

Yet when the State of Ohio claimed the right to conduct its own elections, Sutton not only abandoned his commitment to states-rights in order to side with the Ohio Republican Party, he defied a Supreme Court decision that he himself won before the Supreme Court. It is simply unimaginable that Sutton was unaware of the Sandoval decision when he chose to ignore it in the Ohio GOP’s lawsuit....

MORE at http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/05/11/172078/sutton-brunner/

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/default.html

Louisville Courier Journal
Gay marriage appeals get GOP-leaning panel
Andrew Wolfson, The Courier-Journal 10:14 p.m. EDT July 23, 2014

(excerpt)
That judge, Jeffrey S. Sutton, writing in March in Harvard Law Review, said, "Count me as a skeptic when it comes to the idea that this day and age suffers from a shortage of constitutional rights."

Sutton also wrote an opinion in 2012 for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstating a suit filed by a graduate counseling student and evangelical Christian who was expelled from Eastern Michigan University when she refused to work with clients in same-sex relationships.

The two other judges who will hear the gay marriage cases Aug. 6 are Deborah L. Cook and Martha Craig Daughtrey.

Daughtrey, a senior judge appointed by President Bill Clinton, is known for opposing the death penalty and supporting affirmative action and other liberal views, while Cook, in her previous position on the Ohio Supreme Court, ruled against injured workers, consumers and victims of discrimination....

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2014/07/23/kentucky-gay-marriage-appeal-heard-panel-conservative-judges/13016615/

just means an en banc review. Which may or may not go differently.

Estimates of a loss range from 50% to 33% depending on how optimistic the person is. My guess is currently 50%.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/same-sex-marriage-hearings-prompt-tight-security-at-federal-courthouse-in-cincinnati

"I would have thought the best way to get respect and dignity is through the democratic process," said Sutton, a George W. Bush nominee. "Nothing happens as quickly as we'd like it."

Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, a Bill Clinton nominee, said that historically, courts have had to intervene when individual constitutional rights are being violated, such as overturning state laws against interracial marriage and giving women the right to vote, pointing out that the latter took decades.

"Do you have any knowledge of how many years I'm talking about, going into every state, every city, every state board of elections, for 70 years?" she said. "It didn't work. It took an amendment to the Constitution."

Besides, gay marriage already is legal in more than a quarter of the states, and "it doesn't look like the sky has fallen in," Daughtrey said....

http://www.wcpo.com/news/news-photo-gallery/downtown-cincinnati-center-of-same-sex-marriage-rally-protest-as-court-hears-cases

Note, just in case some folks don't know-- the decision of the federal court in Cincinnati will affect gay rights in four states: Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Cincinnati.com
Gay marriage hearing ends: How will court rule?
By Amber Hunt and A.J. Kmetz

Two Republican-appointed judges weighing the fate of gay marriage in four states, including Ohio and Kentucky, didn't give much away as they peppered lawyers on both sides Wednesday with hard-hitting questions.

Especially difficult to read was Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, whose queries fell on both sides of the issue. At one point, he declared that modern-day marriage is about "love, affection and commitment" rather than procreation – poking a hole in one argument against legalizing same-sex marriage.

Then, at another, he criticized gay rights advocates for trying to bypass voters. "Changing hearts and minds happens much more effectively through the Democratic process than through the courts," Sutton said.

Figuring out how Sutton and fellow George W. Bush appointee Deborah L. Cook might vote on the issue could be key to predicting whether voter-approved gay marriage bans will ultimately be allowed to stand in the four states along the Interstate 75 corridor. That's because the questions and comments from the panel's sole Democrat appointee, Covington native Martha Craig Daughtrey, seemed more consistently sympathetic to gay rights advocates....

MORE at http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2014/08/06/gay-marriage-bans-states-go-court/13669277/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/07/338451247/federal-judges-weigh-gay-marriage-cases-from-four-states?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=us

Here's what the cases are about, as summarized by the AP:

Kentucky has two cases in play. One has been brought by three couples who are asking to have their out-of-state marriages recognized. The other is about Kentucky's ban on issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

Michigan's case came about when a lesbian couple challenged the state's law "that bars them from jointly adopting their three children."

Ohio has two cases: One about noting a gay marriage on a death certificate, and another about listing both gay parents on their children's birth certificates.

Tennessee's case is also about gay couples being recognized on their kids' birth certificates.

The New York Times notes why this hearing on gay marriage bans could go beyond these four states:
"If this court were to rule against same-sex marriage, it would create greater pressure on the Supreme Court to rule on the issue to clear up the contradictory decisions among appeals courts."