SCOTUS on LGBT Appeals Court Rulings ~ Not Federal purview to judge. why no dismissals at Appeals level? #MIGOP #tcot #sgp

Federal law does not supersede State law when Federal law/Court Rulings are unconstitutional.

 In the SCOTUS recent Windsor decision of not hearing the several Appeals Court decisions, the Federal Supreme Court stated that they are not hearing those cases, because the federal government has no jurisdiction over moral issues.  This should of it's own undone those Appeals courts that removed the States' Sanctity of Marriage determinations of marriage being of one man and one woman.

Why have we been silent to this fact?  Why have not these Appeals Court decisions been dismissed?

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/22/democrat-appointed-federal-judge-right-sex-marriage/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

COMMENTARY BY

Ryan T. Anderson@RyanT_Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. Read his research.

On Tuesday, United States District Judge Juan Pérez-Giménezupheld Puerto Rico’s law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He concluded that the U.S. Constitution does not require the redefinition of marriage.

Notably, Pérez-Giménez becomes the first Democrat-appointee to the federal bench to uphold marriage law since the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision on the Defense of Marriage Act case.

And it is the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision that Pérez-Giménez highlights as to why states have constitutional authority to make marriage policy:

The Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsorstands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question.

Pérez-Giménez goes on to cite Windsor: “the definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the ‘protection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.’”