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.

First Prev
of 67
Next Last

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1 Sep 3, 2014
This ruling will be appealed as the Judge CLEARLY misread the 14th Amendment(which by the way DOESN'T mention race at all)!!!
Ted Haggard s Masseur

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Sep 3, 2014
The one who found similarly in TN was only state, not federal?
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#3 Sep 3, 2014
Now our REAL problems begin ... as predicted.
Belle Sexton

Santa Cruz, CA

#5 Sep 3, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
In addition FFC contains NO EXCEPTIONS regarding the mandated legal recognition of other states' legal acts and things.
That's why successive Justices have ignored it, side-stepped it, or included in their decisions statements which water it down. Their reasoning for this is really just an intellectually lazy pragmatism.

At least it doesn't include greed, foolishness and lack of foresight as exemplified in the doctrine of corporate personhood.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#6 Sep 3, 2014
So the bigots finally found a real live activist judge.

How does one get to be a Federal judge without any understanding of the 14th Amendment?

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#7 Sep 3, 2014
And this too will go by the way side.....in a matter of time.
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Furlong, PA

#9 Sep 3, 2014
The so called 'judge' should be disbarred and removed from the bench!
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#10 Sep 3, 2014
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.
Ted Haggard s Masseur

Philadelphia, PA

#11 Sep 3, 2014
"and that independent judgment is to be presumed and not suspect just because you don't like or disagree with the outcome"

Actually it's expected to note some deviation from everyone else's understanding of "equal protection."

There's imperfection and then there's lifelong prejudice. In many cases the latter gets folded into the former either consciously or unconsciously, or even into a more soundly reasoned argument that happens to squash equal rights.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#12 Sep 3, 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.
And if there was any way to support carving out a subset of law-abiding citizens and exempting them from the equal protection under the law that the constitution guarantees, he might not be getting so much heat for making a totally supportable, indefensible decision.

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?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#13 Sep 3, 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.
And judges are still bound by the constitution. 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.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#14 Sep 3, 2014
To infer malice where there is no evidence is simply wrongheaded. Cases don't get decided on a preconceived outcome. Evidence takes the factfinder to the conclusion and that, too, is presumed. Unless you have evidence to the contrary here, it is presumed in this case. Regardless, as I previously stated, this will be decided by the SCOTUS and they, too, are prone to making mistakes.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#15 Sep 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
And if there was any way to support carving out a subset of law-abiding citizens and exempting them from the equal protection under the law that the constitution guarantees, he might not be getting so much heat for making a totally supportable, indefensible decision.
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?
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.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#16 Sep 3, 2014
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.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#17 Sep 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
And judges are still bound by the constitution. 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.
Your declaration is duly noted, and summarily dismissed, an opinion I hold and which is supported in my previous remarks.
Far Away

Anchorage, AK

#18 Sep 3, 2014
When there is a 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1 split in the SCOTUS, clearly both sides are not right, but it cannot--or at least should not--be assumed that the dichotomy is motivated by bias. We are all the sum of our experiences and understanding and, as such, we will disagree from time to time. Neither of us is *evil* because we disagree.
Ted Haggard s Masseur

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Sep 3, 2014
"Evidence takes the factfinder to the conclusion and that, too, is presumed. Unless you have evidence to the contrary here, it is presumed in this case. Regardless, as I previously stated, this will be decided by the SCOTUS and they, too, are prone to making mistakes. "

There's plenty of evidence of personal bigotries playing a part in various Supreme Court Justices' decisions.

You're confused.
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#20 Sep 3, 2014
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."

As for the ruling: Don't make more of this than it deserves, my usual posting pals. This is one, small blip in our long march to victory. This ruling is flawed at every level, with illogical reasoning and references to things in the Constitution that don't even exist. The circuit appellate court will almost certainly overturn it. It would take a good bit of balls for them to decide that nearly every other federal judge in the nation is wrong and the feds in the south are right. Especially when the rulings mirror each other with their language and reasoning.

A blip. Nothing more.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#22 Sep 3, 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."
As for the ruling: Don't make more of this than it deserves, my usual posting pals. This is one, small blip in our long march to victory. This ruling is flawed at every level, with illogical reasoning and references to things in the Constitution that don't even exist. The circuit appellate court will almost certainly overturn it. It would take a good bit of balls for them to decide that nearly every other federal judge in the nation is wrong and the feds in the south are right. Especially when the rulings mirror each other with their language and reasoning.
A blip. Nothing more.
Exactly....and it's in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which we figured would rule NOT in the favor of Justice, besides, Judge Feldman told the plaintiff's that they SHOULDN'T count on the ruling in the Loving decision as it has NOTHING to do with their argument.......this ruling WILL be appealed and SCOTUS is going to eventually hear a Marriage Equally case sometime this year and rule by June of 2015!!!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#24 Sep 3, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
This ruling will be appealed as the Judge CLEARLY misread the 14th Amendment(which by the way DOESN'T mention race at all)!!!
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...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 67
Next Last

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.

US Supreme Court Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cross-border slaying: Can dead teen's family su... 42 min Red Crosse 3
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Twisty brain 242,607
News Arizona Supreme Court says gays get equal paren... 2 hr Johnny 21
News 2 Defendants In Lillelid Murders Want Sentence ... 11 hr Tabitha 13
News Trump Adds to Rollback of Obama Legacy With Ant... 16 hr TomInElPaso 106
News Dick Polman: An Ignorant America Endangers Demo... Mon Trump is a joke 2
News Despite pardon, Arpaio judge isn't convinced sh... Sep 16 tomin cali 1
More from around the web