While the addition in late October of six states brought to 32 the total number of states that recognize gay marriages and grant same-sex partners federal benefits, the battle for equality for members of the LGBT community took a step backward with the Thursday decision of a federal court.

Like Us on Facebook

The 6^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, on a 2-1 vote, upheld state prohibitions on gay marriages in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. This move places pressure on the Supreme Court to step in and tackle the same-sex marriage case after the ruling of the Cincinnati-based court created a 4-to-1 split among federal appeal courts on gay weddings.

According to the majority decision written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the plaintiffs failed to convince the courts to intervene rather than leave the issue to state legislatures.

"When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers," Reuters quoted Sutton's decision, shared by Judge Deborah Cook.

He prefers that "the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories" would be the venue to resolve these issues.

Sutton said both gay rights advocates and the American public deserve better by winning these controversial issues via legislation and initiatives, which are more acceptable, than a decision handed down by courts.

He asked, "Isn't [it] the goal to create a culture in which a majority of citizens dignify and respect the right of minority groups through majoritarian laws rather than through decisions issued by a majority of Supreme Court justices?"

However, in a dissenting opinion, Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, compared the majority decision to "an engrossing TED talk" that neglected the impact of the ruling on lesbian and gay pairs.

She said, "Instead of recognizing the plaintiff as persons suffering actual harm as a result of being denied the right to marry where they reside, or the right to have their valid marriages recognized there, my colleagues viewed the plaintiffs as social activists who have somehow stumbled into federal court."

In response to the court decision, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that it would file right away for a Supreme Court review in the hope that the decision, which the union found to be deeply disappointing, would lead to a uniform rule of equality in the U.S. from the highest court in the country.

The plaintiffs are considering all options, including appealing to the Supreme Court, said Joe Dunman, the lawyer who represents them in the Kentucky case.

Tagsfederal court, gay marriage, same sex marriage, gay marriage ban, LGBT, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee