US judge upholds state same-sex marri...

US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, refusal to recognize out-of-state gay weddings

There are 1334 comments on the Brandon Sun story from Sep 3, 2014, titled US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, refusal to recognize out-of-state gay weddings. In it, Brandon Sun reports that:

A U.S. judge has upheld Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriages, as well as the state's refusal to recognize gay marriages legally performed in other states, ending an impressive streak of legal victories for gay marriage advocates.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brandon Sun.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25 Sep 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
And judges are still bound by the constitution.
Yes they are. The constitution doesn't mention marriage, or sexual identity labels.
Their "independent judgment" is still required to follow the constitution. That's why I'm declaring that the right has finally found their activist judge. He ignored at least a third of the constitution and all the facts in order to find for the bigots in this case.
No, he recognized the constitutional authority of the states to define and regulate marriage. The Feds don't issue the license.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26 Sep 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
How, exactly, is denying gay people and only gay people the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice not a violation of equal protections under the law?
How is denying states the right and authority to define marriage not a clear violation of the 10th amendment to the constitution? So as long as a man or woman adopts and/or self professes a sexual identity label, s/he should b treated differently than other men and women as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, the sole legal understanding of marriage for all but ten years of the history of the Republic?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#28 Sep 3, 2014
Far Away wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough that you have the right to hold the opinion that the judge was wrong. What you don't have is the right to is to presume it stems from bad motive. Unless or until the SCOTUS says otherwise, this judge is right, and because other judges have held differently doesn't change that fact. Judges disagree all the time. Just look at the SCOTUS.
Have you ever heard of the U.S. constitution? It's kind of important here.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#29 Sep 3, 2014
Far Away wrote:
E.g., I give you Plessy v. Ferguson. It was right until it was determined to be wrong, no matter what opinions citizens may hold to the contrary. Such is the case here, just as in the cases that have decided otherwise.
You have a very bizarre "understanding" of how constitutional law works. The fact the Plessy vs. Ferguson was overturned means that it wasn't right to begin with. If it had been, it would still be right, wouldn't it?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#30 Sep 3, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He clearly recognized the constitutional authority of the states to define and regulate marriage.....
And completely ignored the entire balance of the constitution in order to do it. That will never fly at the appellate level. He even admits right out that bans on equality disadvantage a subset of the population, something the 14th Amendment clearly forbids. And he tried to justify that be claiming that the 14th Amendment only applies to race, ignoring the fact that the 14th Amendment never mentions race.

When you have to ignore things that are plainly there and pretend things are there that clearly don't exist, the only reasonable conclusion is that Judge Feldman is a real-life example of an activist judge, attempting to legislate from the bench. Fortunately for everyone, he won't be allowed to do that.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#31 Sep 3, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are. The constitution doesn't mention marriage, or sexual identity labels.
<quoted text>
No, he recognized the constitutional authority of the states to define and regulate marriage. The Feds don't issue the license.
OMG. You're not one of those idiots that's going to argue that since marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, only straight people have a constitutional right to marry, are you? Or that only things specifically mentioned in the constitution are required to be equal?

Again, read the 14th amendment. If the government offers protections to one group, it has to offer the same protections to every group. You can't carve out a group and consign them to unequal treatment without a compelling government interest. And there's no compelling government interest in banning certain couples from marrying.

Maybe Judge Feldman hasn't read the 14th amendment. It certainly looks that way. Or, if he has, he doesn't understand it. Or he has to pretend he doesn't..... Which do you think it is? Cluelessness or willful ignorance?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#32 Sep 3, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How is denying states the right and authority to define marriage not a clear violation of the 10th amendment to the constitution? So as long as a man or woman adopts and/or self professes a sexual identity label, s/he should b treated differently than other men and women as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, the sole legal understanding of marriage for all but ten years of the history of the Republic?
It doesn't violate the 10th amendment because bans on equal protection aren't unconstitutional because the states didn't have the authority to pass the laws banning equality. They're unconstitutional because they violate equal protection.

The constitution also doesn't specifically ban the state from passing laws that ban interracial marriage, either, but those bans were certainly thrown out, weren't they? They were thrown out based on the equal protection guarantee of the 14th amendment, not because the states were blocked from regulating marriage laws.

Think of it this way--there are *many* places in the U.S. where it would be a breeze to hold a majority vote that would approve slavery in those parts of the country. The Federal constitution doesn't specifically ban slavery, does it? So why can't we get enough people together to vote slavery back in? I'd love to own a slave or two to do my housework for me, wouldn't you? But,*OOPS!!* there's that pesky 14th amendment and it's guarantee of equal protections under the law. Dammit!! It looms like I'm gonna have to keep doing my own laundry, doesn't it?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#33 Sep 3, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
So, according to you THIS Judge is right and the other 20 plus rulings and 2 appeal rulings are wrong, is that it?

Interesting reasoning Pete....wrong, but then you DON'T care about what's right...just as long as a Judge rules the way you want......again, this is nothing more than a bump in the fight!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#34 Sep 3, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>I think you're off by a year. 2016.
Could be, but either way, it will happen a lot faster than some folks would like it to!!!
Ted Haggard s Masseur

Philadelphia, PA

#36 Sep 3, 2014
"[positing it as a fallacy] that other associative forms may be equally stable"

Here you see the insanity of homophobia laid bare. All you have to do is check out the divorce rates for heterosexuals.
Ted Haggard s Masseur

Philadelphia, PA

#37 Sep 3, 2014
"No, he recognized the constitutional authority of the states to define and regulate marriage. The Feds don't issue the license."

Right wingers are sick and ignorant. States' marriage licenses have long been overseen by federal courts. Loving is perfectly relevant in this sense.

DOMA took the "state marriage" issue and explicitly made "state marriage" a federal issue.

But the fundies and tee baggrz only have nonsense arguments to hang their personal bigotry on.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#38 Sep 4, 2014
So the anti-gays finally found a conservative activist judge who just re-wrote the 14th amendment.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#39 Sep 4, 2014
He's a 70+ y/o conservative judge from the deep south; is this really a shock to anyone?

The only effect this will have is to delay the SCOTUS taking any case until the 5th circuit has ruled.

Unfortunately that will likely push the case into the '15/'16 term with a SCOTUS ruling not until Jun '16.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#41 Sep 4, 2014
Sir Andrew wrote:
Dear Alaska Boy Far Away: You people elected Sarah Palin as governor. I'm not sure you should be addressing the concept of "independent judgment."
.....
I'll see your Sarah Palin and I'll raise you one Barack Øbama. Aside from that, ad hominem doesn't refute or even diminish the correctness of my observations, Sir (hardly) Andrew.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#43 Sep 4, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
They're both catastrophes. Just on opposite sides of the political (and moral) spectrum.
Unlike Øbama in office, Palin was a damned fine governor while in office. Yeah, I know... she quit... blah... blah...
The Troll Stopper

Blacksburg, VA

#44 Sep 4, 2014
Far Away wrote:
Øbama..
Resorting to "cute" spellings doesn't enhance your credibility any, bub.
The Troll Stopper

Blacksburg, VA

#45 Sep 4, 2014
Far Away wrote:
Øbama
Again resorting to "cute" spellings. Real mature [/sarc].
Far Away wrote:
Palin was a damned fine governor while in office.
Gee whiz, then why did she get her ass kicked in the 2012 election? LOLAY!
Far Away wrote:
Yeah, I know... she quit...
Well gee whiz, was that because she was a "damned fine governor"?
Far Away wrote:
blah... blah...
It's not "blah blah", it's FACT, boy.
Kyle

Newport News, VA

#47 Sep 4, 2014
Far Away wrote:
Not taking a side in this debate, but those of you calling for a tarring and feathering of this judge and/or demeaning his abilities need to knock it off. Judges are required to use their independent judgment, and that independent judgment is to be presumed and not suspect just because you don't like or disagree with the outcome. Courts disagree with other courts all the time. There is no reason to assume the judge was motivated by anything other than his understanding and reasoning, weighing the facts and law of the case and rendering a judgment accordingly. It'll be up to an appellate court to say he's right or wrong, and not you, me, nor other U.S. District Court judges. Ultimately the case will be decided at the SCOTUS level and they've been known to get things wrong, too. These judges and justices are, after all, human beings subject to fallability and perfection in the same being over a lifetime, just like you and me.
US Constitution

Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Troll Stopper

Blacksburg, VA

#48 Sep 4, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
But calling him "The Obamaniac" does !
Actually, no it doesn't. When you have something to say which pertains to the actual topic of this thread, please let us know. Until then, feel free to STFU, troll.
Kyle

Newport News, VA

#49 Sep 4, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
He clearly recognized the constitutional authority of the states to define and regulate marriage.
He also said:
Louisiana, the judge says, has a legitimate interest in defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. Feldman explains:
"So, is there even any rational basis for Louisiana's resistance to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other states, or to authorize same-sex marriages in Louisiana? Plaintiffs contend not, and conclude that Louisiana's laws and Constitution can only be supported by a hateful animus.
"Defendants rejoin that the laws serve a central state interest of linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents. Of even more consequence, in this Court's judgment, defendants assert a legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus. This Court agrees."
"Louisiana's laws and Constitution are directly related to achieving marriage's historically preeminent purpose of linking children to their biological parents. Louisiana's regime pays respect to the democratic process; to vigorous debate. To predictable controversy, of course. The fact that marriage has many differing, even perhaps unproved dimensions, does not render Louisiana's decision irrational. Nor does the opinion of a set ofsocial scientists (ardently disputed by many others, it should benoted) that other associative forms may be equally stable, or the view that such judgments vilify a group (even though one finds them in a majority of the states, but not in all states). Even the fact that the state's precepts work to one group's disadvantage does not mandate that they serve no rational basis. The Court is persuaded that a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years, and prevails in a majority of states today, is not universally irrational on the constitutional grid."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/09/0...
This is an usurpers logic. No law created in any State can or will super cede the United States Constitution. Activist Southern Judges have long tried to protect southern traditions over the law of the land. We can't forget a major part of the heritage in the south is usurping the constitution and subjugating individual rights of American citizens who were though not worthy of freedom and independence . Marriage is and should be available to all American citizens equally.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 15 min Respect71 48,083
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 21 min Imprtnrd 25,305
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 26 min Defeat Elizabeth ... 84
News Republican senator apologizes for saying 'a guy... 30 min Gremlin 3
News Blood donation restrictions for gay men 'discri... 33 min Gremlin 1
News 'Yep, I'm Gay': Happy 20th out anniversary, Ell... 1 hr Gremlin 2
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 13,397
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Rose_NoHo 5,599
News Gay pastor fights censure by United Methodist C... 5 hr Logic Analysis 163
More from around the web