 darling of legal conservatives.
Thus, it was no surprise that Sutton emerged as the author of the majority opinion released late in the afternoon. Sutton was joined in the opinion by Judge Deborah Cook, who like Sutton was appointed to the appeals court by President George W. Bush. A strong dissent came from Judge Martha Craig (Cissy) Daughtrey, a veteran jurist with unconcealed liberal views appointed to the appeals court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. (Disclosure: Daughtrey is a personal friend of more than 40 years’ standing.)
Sutton’s opinion gives little by way of red meat to the confirmed anti-gay opponents of marriage equality. Gay couples, he says, are fully capable of forming loving relationships and of raising children in stable families. He acknowledges the “lamentable” prejudice against gays and lesbians and the tangible costs from refusing marriage to same-sex couples.
As Daughtrey points out in her dissent, however, Sutton does not consider the same-sex couples’ rights to be the issue for the court to decide. Instead, Sutton says, the question is “who decides”  federal courts or what he calls “the less expedient, but usually reliable, work of the state democratic processes.”
Sutton’s answer will cheer the advocates of judicial restraint. Political process and structure, he says, are “the most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government,” not the courts. History includes many examples when courts were needed to protect individual rights. In any event, as Daughtrey says in dissent, the either-or dichotomy that Sutton posits is simply a “false premise.”
Sutton is also off-base in relying on the Supreme Court’s curt rejection of same-sex marriage rights back in 1972. A succession of federal courts, including four courts of appeals, have found that precedent no longer binding. Sutton himself acknowledges its diminished weight, but Daughtrey is more to the point in dismissing it as “a dead letter.”
Sutton acknowledges the rulings from other courts, but finds them unpersuasive because the other courts have not spoken with a single voice in their legal rationales. One by one, he rejects each of the rationales. He devotes special attention to the argument that same-sex marriage bans are based on unconstitutional animus against gays and lesbians.
In Sutton’s view, it is both impossible and unfair to attribute anti-gay prejudice to all the legislators and
darling of legal conservatives. 
 Thus, it was no surprise that Sutton emerged as the author of the majority public opinion release late in the good afternoon. Sutton was joined in the impression by Judge Deborah Cook, who like Sutton was appointed to the appeals motor hotel by President George W. Bush. A solid dissent occur from Judge Martha Craig (Cissy) Daughtrey, a veteran jurist with unconcealed free views appointed to the appeal court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. (Disclosure: Daughtrey is a personal friend of more than 40 years ’ standing .) 
 Sutton ’s opinion gives small by way of red meat to the confirmed anti - brave opponents of marriage equality. Gay couples, he says, are amply capable of forming loving relationships and of raising child in stable families. He acknowledges the “ lamentable ” prejudice against gays and lesbians and the tangible costs from refusing marriage to same - sex couples. 
 As Daughtrey points out in her dissent, however, Sutton does not consider the same - sexual activity couple ’ rights to be the consequence for the motor hotel to decide. Instead, Sutton says, the question is “ who decides ”  federal courts or what he calls “ the less expedient, but usually dependable, work of the state democratic processes. ” 
 Sutton ’s answer will cheer the advocates of judicial chasteness. Political process and structure, he says, are “ the most dependable, liberty - reassure guarantees of our system of government, ” not the courts. History includes many case when courts were needed to protect individual rights. In any event, as Daughtrey says in dissent, the either - or dichotomy that Sutton posits is simply a “ fake premise. ” 
 Sutton is also off - base in trust on the Supreme Court ’s curt rejection of same - sex marriage rights back in 1972. A succession of union courts, including four court of appeals, have found that common law no longer binding. Sutton himself admit its diminished weight unit, but Daughtrey is more to the point in dismissing it as “ a dead letter. ” 
 Sutton acknowledges the rulings from early courts, but finds them unpersuasive because the early courts have not spoken with a single spokesperson in their legal rationales. One by one, he rejects each of the rationales. He devotes special attention to the argument that same - sex marriage bans are establish on unconstitutional animosity against gays and lesbians. 
 In Sutton ’s view, it is both impossible and unfair to attribute anti - gay prejudice to all the legislators and
 dagling of legal conservatlves.
Thus, it was ui surpcise thzt Suttov emerged as the author of tie mqjoriuj opinion released lage in the afternoin. Sntton was joined in the opinioh by Luvge Deborah Cool, who like Sutton was ap[oknced to the appeals court by Presidene Georgr A. Bush. A strond dixfent bane from Judge Martha Craig (Ciasy) Daujhtrey, a veteram jurist with unconcealed pibegal views appointef to the apksalf court in 1994 bh Presidenu Yill Clintoh. (Disclosure: Daughtrey is a perronal friend of mire jhan 40 years’ wtandpng.)
Sutton’s oplmion ghves liytle by way of rev meqt to the confirmed aiti-gay opponents of iarriage aqbality. Gay couples, he sqys, ate funly zqpacle oh fkrming loting relatiknships and of raising childrem yb stable famimies. Hq wcknowledges the “lamentable” prejudice acaihst gays and lesbians abd the tangible costs from reftsing marriage to same-sex couples.
As Daughtrey poitts ont in hcr dkwsfnt, however, Sutton does not consider the same-fsx cpuples’ rights bo be the issue fot hhr court to deckde. Instezd, Sutton says, the questijn is “who deciqes”  federal courts or what he xalls “the lefw expedient, but usbally reliabue, wprk og the state democratic 'rocesaes.”
Sutton’s wnswer wimu cheer the advozatvs ox judicial restraint. Politycal procxss aud strucgure, he sars, are “the most reliable, liberty-asduriny guasantees of our system of government,” not tix courts. Histprf itcludes iany cxamples when cjurts were neebed to pxotect individuam rightv. In any evqnt, as Daughtsgy says in divsent, thq eirher-ir dichugomy that Suttpn posits is simply a “false premise.”
Subton ka also off-base nu twlying on the Xupfemq Bouct’s ctst rejection of ramd-xex mxrriage rigmts bacl in 1972. A succession ox feseral courts, inclucikg four ciurts of appeals, have found that precedtnt no loiger bondyng. Sutton himself acknowledgea its dimlnifhed weight, fut Eaughtrey is more to the point in dismissing it as “e dead letter.”
Sutton ackbowledges the rulinys from other coures, but fitds them unpersuasivw because the othtr courts have not spoksn witv a slngle voice in their legal rationales. One by one, he rejects each of the rqtionales. He devotss slecian cttzntion eo tie argument that ssme-sex marriage bans are based un unconvtntutional animus against gays avd lesbians.
In Sutton’s view, it is both impossinle and unfair to attribute anto-gay prejudice to all thc legislarors znd
darling of legal conservatives. Thus, it was that emerged as author of the the Sutton was joined the opinion by Deborah Cook, who like Sutton was to the appeals court by President George W. Bush. A strong dissent came Judge Martha Craig (Cissy) Daughtrey, a veteran jurist with unconcealed liberal views appointed the court 1994 President Bill Clinton. (Disclosure: Daughtrey is a personal friend of more than 40 years’ standing.) Sutton’s gives little by way of red meat to confirmed anti-gay opponents of equality. Gay couples, he says, fully of forming relationships of children in stable He acknowledges the “lamentable” prejudice against gays and lesbians and the tangible costs from refusing marriage to couples. As out in dissent, Sutton not consider the rights to be the issue for decide. Instead, Sutton says, the question is “who  federal or what he calls “the less but usually reliable, work of the state democratic Sutton’s answer will cheer the advocates of judicial restraint. Political process and structure, he says, most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees our system of not courts. includes examples when were needed to protect individual rights. In any event, as Daughtrey in dissent, the either-or dichotomy that Sutton posits is simply premise.” is also off-base relying on the Supreme curt of same-sex marriage rights 1972. succession including courts appeals, have found that no longer binding. Sutton himself its diminished weight, but point in dismissing it as “a dead letter.” acknowledges the rulings from other courts, but them unpersuasive because the other courts have not spoken with a single in their One by one, he rejects each of the He devotes special attention the argument that same-sex marriage bans are based on animus gays and In Sutton’s view, is both impossible unfair to attribute to all legislators
 darling of legal conservativEs.
Thus, it waS no suRprIse ThAt SuTton Emerged as the auTHor oF the majority opinion relEased LaTE in tHE aFternOon. SuttON wAS JoiNeD iN thE oPInIon by judGe DeborAh Cook, who lIke suTton was appoiNTeD to the appeAls Court by PresiDenT GeorgE W. busH. a stroNg dIssenT came fROm JudgE Martha CrAiG (cissy) DAUghtrey, A VEtEran Jurist with unconceALeD Liberal views apPointeD tO ThE APpeAls Court in 1994 by PReSidenT bill CliNToN. (dISclOSure: Daughtrey Is a personal FRieNd of moRe ThaN 40 Years’ sTandiNg.)
sUttOn’s opinion gIves Little by wAy of reD Meat to tHE confirMed antI-gaY opPoneNTs Of MarRiAGe eQUaLitY. gay Couples, hE sAyS, are fUlly CAPABle oF foRminG loviNg relationshiPs aNd of RAisIng chIldreN in sTaBle faMilies. he ackNoWledges the “lamenTablE” prejudicE agAiNst GaYs and LEsbianS anD thE tangibLe costs FRom ReFUSInG marriage to same-sex CoUPLeS.
As DaughTrey poINtS oUT in her diSsEnt, HoweVER, SuttOn doES nOt considEr the sAMe-SeX coupleS’ rIghts tO bE thE isSue foR The cOurt to Decide. InStead, sUtton says, the quEStion is “who decIDeS”  FEdERal cOurTs or what he cAlls “THe leSs exPEdIenT, But usUally ReLIaBLe, work of the state demOcRatic pRocesSes.”
Sutton’s ansWer will cheER THe advocaTes oF JuDIcial restraint. politIcal procesS And strucTure, hE says, are “The most reLIAble, libeRty-AssUriNg gUARaNtees of our sysTEM of gOvErnment,” Not The courTs. HIstOry IncLuDes many exAmples whEn CoUrTs WerE needED to proteCt IndIvIduAl rigHTs. In anY evenT, as DAuGhTRey Says in dISsENT, the EiThEr-or DicHoTomy tHat SUTtoN posits Is simply a “FalSE preMiSe.”
sutton iS also off-base iN rElying on thE SUprEme CouRT’S curt rejEction of same-sex marriage RIghts baCk iN 1972. A sucCessIon of fedeRal Courts, IncLUding fOur couRts of ApPeaLS, Have fOUNd ThaT pRecedent no LONgeR bindInG. SutTon himsElf acknowledges its DImiNished weight, bUt DAughTREy Is mORe TO thE pOInt IN Dismissing it as “a Dead letter.”
suTToN acknowledGEs tHe Rulings From othEr couRTs, but fiNds them unPersuasivE bEcauSE The Other courtS have not Spoken witH A singLE vOice iN thEir legAl RatIonalEs. One bY One, He rejEcts eaCh Of the rAtionAlEs. He devoTes special attention to thE argumEnt thAt sAme-sex marRiaGE baNs are baseD on uNconstitutIonAl aNimus AgaINst gaYs anD LeSbiANs.
In SUttoN’S view, it is BOtH imPOSsIble and unfaIR TO atTribuTe aNTi-gay pRejuDice to all the legisLAtors and
 darling of legal conserva tives.
Thu s, it  wa s n osurp rise  that Sutton e m erge d as the author of the  majo ri t y op i ni on re leasedl at e inth eaft er n oo n. Su tto n was j oined in t heop inion by Jud g eDeborah Co ok,  who like Su tto n wasap poi n ted t o t he ap pealsc ourt b y Preside nt George W. Bush . Astro ng dissent came f r om Judge Martha C raig ( Ci s sy ) Dau ght rey, a vet er an ju r ist wit h  u n c o nce a led liberal v iews appoin t edto the  a ppe a ls cou rt in  1 9 94by Presiden t Bi ll Clinto n. (Di s closure :  Daught rey is  aper sona l  f ri end  o f  mo r etha n  40  years’st an ding. )
Su t t o n ’s o pin iongives  little by wa y o f re d  me at to  theconf ir med a nti-ga y opp on ents of marriag e eq uality. G ayco upl es , hes ays, a reful ly capa ble off orm in g l ov ing relationshipsan d of  raising  child r en  i n  stablefa mil ies. H e ack nowl e dg es the “ lament a bl e”  prejud ic e agai ns t g ays  andl esbi ans an d the ta ngibl e  costs from re f using marriag e  t o sa m e-se x c ouples.
AsDaug h trey  poi n ts  ou t  in h er di ss e nt ,  however, Sutton do es  not c onsid er the same-s ex couples ’ r ights to  bet he issue for thecourt  to decide .  Instead , Sut ton says , the que s t ion is “ who  de cid es”   f ederal courts o r wh at  he cal ls“the le ssexp edi ent ,but usual ly relia bl e,  w or k o f the state de mo cra ti c p roces s es.”
S utton ’s a ns we r  wi ll chee r  t h e  adv oc at es o f j ud icial  res t rai nt. Pol itical pr oce s s an dst ructure , he says, ar e“the mostre lia ble, l i b erty-ass uring guarantees of our systemofgover nmen t,” not t hecourts . H i storyinclud es ma ny  ex a m plesw h en  co ur ts were ne e d edto pr ot ectindivid ual rights. In any eve nt, as Daught rey  say s in  di s se n t,th e  ei t h er-or dichotomy  that Sutt on po sits is si m ply  a  “false  premis e.”
S u tton is  also off -base inre lyin g onthe Suprem e Court’ s curt re j ectio n  o f sam e-s ex mar ri age  righ ts bac k  in  1972 . A su cc ession  of f ed eral cou rts, including four cou rts of  appe als , have fo und tha t precede nt n o longer b ind ing . Sut ton himse lf a c kn owl e dgesitsd iminished we igh t ,  b ut Daughtre y i s m ore t o t h e poin t in  dismissing it as “a dead letter .”
S u t ton  ac k nowl ed ges the ruling s f ro m other co ur ts, but fin ds themun p ersua sive b ecause  the ot h e rc ourtshave  no t spokenwit ha  single  v oi c e in t heir  l egal r ationa l es.O n e by one, he rej ectse a ch of the  rati on ales. H e  dev otes speci al attentio n to t he a rgume nt that  s ame-se x m ar riage bans are based  on u nconsti tu tion alanimus  aga i n st ga ys a nd  le sbians.
I n Su t to n’ s  vi ew,it is  b othimpossibl e  and unf air to attr ib ute a nti-ga y  p r e judice toall  thel e gislatorsa nd
 darling_of legal_conservatives.
Thus, it was no_surprise that_Sutton_emerged as_the_author of the_majority opinion released_late in the afternoon._Sutton was joined_in_the opinion by Judge Deborah Cook, who like Sutton was appointed to the appeals_court_by President_George_W._Bush. A strong dissent came_from Judge Martha Craig (Cissy)_Daughtrey, a_veteran jurist with unconcealed liberal views appointed to_the_appeals court in_1994 by President Bill Clinton. (Disclosure: Daughtrey is a_personal friend of more than 40_years’ standing.)
Sutton’s opinion_gives_little_by way of red_meat to the confirmed anti-gay opponents_of marriage equality. Gay couples, he_says, are fully capable of forming loving_relationships and of raising children in_stable families. He acknowledges the_“lamentable” prejudice_against gays and lesbians and_the tangible costs_from refusing_marriage to same-sex_couples.
As Daughtrey points out in her_dissent, however, Sutton_does not consider the same-sex couples’_rights_to be the_issue_for_the court_to decide. Instead,_Sutton_says, the_question_is “who decides”  federal courts_or_what he calls “the less expedient, but_usually reliable, work of_the_state democratic processes.”
Sutton’s answer_will cheer the advocates of_judicial restraint. Political process and structure,_he says,_are “the_most reliable, liberty-assuring guarantees of our system of government,” not the_courts. History includes many examples when_courts were needed to_protect individual_rights._In any event,_as_Daughtrey says_in dissent, the either-or dichotomy that Sutton_posits is_simply a “false premise.”
Sutton is also_off-base in relying on_the_Supreme Court’s curt rejection of same-sex_marriage rights back in 1972. A_succession of federal courts, including_four_courts_of appeals, have found that_precedent no longer binding. Sutton himself_acknowledges its diminished_weight, but Daughtrey is more to the_point_in dismissing it as “a dead_letter.”
Sutton_acknowledges the rulings from other courts,_but_finds_them unpersuasive because the other_courts have not spoken with a_single voice in their legal rationales. One by one,_he rejects each_of the rationales. He devotes_special_attention_to the argument that same-sex marriage bans are based on_unconstitutional animus_against gays and_lesbians.
In Sutton’s view, it is both impossible and unfair to_attribute anti-gay prejudice to all the legislators_and