Quantcast
Family

Federal judge upholds Louisiana's same-sex marriage ban

Comments

Return To Article
  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 9, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    @ Rikitikitavi: Why would a same-sex divorce be any more or less messy than a heterosexual divorce?

    And children have been being raised by same-sex couples long enough now for us to know there is no negative impact.

    And if your concern focuses on what your children may be exposed to, there are a lot of things that are legal that one group or another disproves of and we have done fine teaching our children our values. Why do so many people fear this is the one thing they won't be able to teach their children about?

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Sept. 9, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    I'm not laughing because this debate is far from funny. It is way too early in the whole realm of ssm. We may not know for decades the damage to the younger generation(s) brought on by ssm. Furthermore we ought to brace ourselves for the massive numbers of ss divorces which are inevitable. What a mess that will be.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 6, 2014 6:07 a.m.

    @Flashback 12:30 p.m. Sept. 4, 2014

    So we have two conflicting amendments to the Constitution. 10 and 14. I guess a judge finally applied 10 to this matter. Read it sometime. Last I heard the 10th amendment hasn't been repealed.

    -----------------------

    Those who think that the 10th and 14th Amendments are in conflict are wrong. Read closely the 10th Amendment which says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (emphasis added to point out the specific provision in question) In other words, so-called states' rights actions cannot limit or negate protections found in other parts of the Constitution (including the equal protection provision found in the 5th and 14th Amendments). There's no conflict because, according to the specific provisions of the 10th Amendment, the 14th Amendment controls.

  • Jimmyisliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    "Activist Judges". Is it just a coincidence that this term seems to resonate in Utah County, Southern Utah, parts of Idaho and The South? Guarantee 100% this decision will be overruled and law properly applied. Judge missed a crucial step when applying rational basis review.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 5, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    @RedWings

    "churches who offer support to those with same-sex attraction that do not want to engage in homosexual activity are picketed, harassed, and even vandalized"

    I'd like to see some proof of vandalizing and harassment. As for picketing: free speech is free speech for all, not just those you agree with.

    "that those who "simply want the same rights as straight couples" engage in plenty of bigoted and harassing behavior against those who disagree with them"

    For the few who I'm sure engage in such behavior I'll bet they have learned it from years of being told they are going to hell or that they are an abomination or from years of being beaten, harassed, physically threatened, and sometimes murdered by "good Christian" folk. The golden rule, like free speech, works both ways.

    "We all have a right to our opinions."

    And we all have equal right to disagree with them and call them out.

    "My stance has nothing to do with homophobia or bigotry."

    Sorry, I just don't believe that.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Sept. 5, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    @RedWings
    "why is it OK for the beliefs of the LGBT movement to be forced on me and my children at school, in the media, and by the courts?"

    Again, only your assertion, no evidence of such enforcement. and you can always choose private school run by church, like those parents who disagree with evolution.

    in the media?
    Media have their own freedom to report news they see fit. Nobody forces you to read or watch such media, and you can always choose Fox News.

    and by the courts?
    That is because after opponents presented all the arguments they have, judges have found their arguments weak, irrational and can not stand scrutiny. that is why they lost, in many different courts, no less.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    @RedWings;

    "So why is it OK for the beliefs of the LGBT movement to be forced on me and my children at school, in the media, and by the courts?"

    --- Do schools teach about heterosexual families? Then what is wrong with teaching that some familes are not like the others? The media blitzes us every day with heterosexuality. Every commercial. Every show. Every movie. If you can't stand seeing LGBT people in the media then turn it off. If you can't stand having your children see some diversity then home-school them. If you weren't using the system to force your beliefs on us (voting on our rights), then we wouldn't need to resort to the courts to redress the inequality, would we?

    "The right to express opinion and belief extends to those you disagree with too."

    --- The right to express an opinion or belief isn't the same as voting away the rights of others. You can say anything you like, you just cannot make us live by your opinions and beliefs.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    @ skrekk:

    Heterosexual and homosexual behavior are physically different. One uses the body as it was physiologially intended, where the other does not.

    The SC has not been asked to differentiate betweeen behavior and characteristic - yet. However, thousands who have same-sex attraction and choose to not engage in homosexual behavior show that the two are different.

    If you protect homosexual behavior, you must also allow for those who choose to use religion, therapy, etc to not act out homosexually. Otherwise, you impose your morality onto others.

    @ Ranch:

    Those who go over the line in are wrong no matter what they are disagreeing with. I oppose bullying and harassment of abortion clinics just as much as you do.

    I agree that no one should force their belief on others. So why is it OK for the beliefs of the LGBT movement to be forced on me and my children at school, in the media, and by the courts? The right to express opinion and belief extends to those you disagree with too.

    Hypocrisy works both ways....

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Sept. 5, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    @RedWings
    "Religion may also be a "behavior" but our founding fathers carved this protection out specifically in the Constitution."

    In 2003, Lawrence v Texas, the high court also ruled that the private intimacy between gay couples are constitutionally protected.

    "legalizing SSM under equal protection requires schools to teach that this behavior"
    where is that requirement coming from? it is only your assertion.

    "Many do not agree with this morality, including me"
    some people also do not agree with school's sex education, evolution etc, they can always find a private school run by church.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    @Flashback;

    U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    What does "nor prohibited by it to the states" mean to you? To me, it says that the states MAY NOT violate the US Constitutional rights of citizens. Any citizens.

    @RedWings;

    Conservatives picket, harass and vandalize abortion clincs all the time; it's apparently okay for you conservatives to use those tactics but nobody else? (That's called hypocrisy).

    You have the right to your opinion. You DO NOT have the right to tell other people they must live according to your opinion or beliefs.

    You seem okay using votes to force your opinion on us but you get upset when we use the courts to redress the discrimination YOU PERFORM? Another hypocricital moment.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Sept. 5, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    @RedWings says: "While same-sex attraction may be immutable (not fully proven yet), homosexual behavior is not. No one is absolutely required to engage in any behavior. To protect a behvior with equal rights law is a dangerous precedent."

    You've got several problems with your reasoning there:
    1. Apart from the gender of the people involved, "homosexual behavior" is pretty much the same as "straight behavior."
    1. The state doesn't inquire about your sex life before granting a marriage license.
    2. The state isn't allowed to care about the sex lives of consenting adults, per Lawrence v Texas.
    3. The supreme court doesn't distinguish between status and behavior in this area. As far as the court is concerned there is no difference between "homosexual" and "homosexual behavior" (whatever you imagine that to be).

    There's a reason why your side has lost every court ruling to date....except for one by an extremely elderly judge in a confederate state who got pretty much all the legal issues flat wrong.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Sept. 5, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    @ Ralph:

    You pose some good questions and points. Thanks...

    Here is the problem as I see it: Equal protection for all is based on immutable and unchangeable characteristics (race, gender, national origin, etc). While same-sex attraction may be immutable (not fully proven yet), homosexual behavior is not. No one is absolutely required to engage in any behavior. To protect a behvior with equal rights law is a dangerous precedent.

    What are the next behaviors we will protect? BDSM? Pedophilia? Beastiality?

    Also, legalizing SSM under equal protection requires schools to teach that this behavior - homosexuality - is natutal, normal, and acceptable. Many do not agree with this morality, including me. While I accept that other have different morals and are entitled to live them, I do not condone teaching my children those morals. Yet this is forced in SSM states.

    FYI - Religion may also be a "behavior" but our founding fathers carved this protection out specifically in the Constitution.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    @Strachan,

    You're putting words into my mouth.... I didn't say that.

    I just gave you an example of same sex supporters shopping around... you asked for it and I gave it.

    I know that BOTH sides shop around for a court that will rule in their favor, I'm into reality. It was YOU who insisted it never happens and wanted even one example.

  • Strachan Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    @Liberty for All and 2bits:

    So Utah and other states act appropriately when they appeal decisions going against them, but plaintiffs are just judge (s)hopping? There is a process by which cases are appealed. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants get to choose who is on the panel appointed to hear the case. It sounds to me like your idea of a "liberal judge" is one who disagrees with you.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    @Anti-Government
    "So you agree with me. I never said it only works one way did I?"

    This is true. Of course, both sides also think they do have the Constitutional view on the matter and are looking for judges to rule based on the Constitution.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    @Redwings: SSM brings a whole new set of ideas, morals, rules, and problems.

    According to your religious-book-interpreters, or religious leaders, perhaps that's true.
    But perhaps the new set of ideas you are talking about, is the idea of equality for all citizens. The you would be correct. But if you mean bringing a new set of ideas and morals to the institution of marriage, please elaborate. It seems to me that the problems of a homosexual marriage would be pretty much the same as that of a heterosexual marriage...

    Except, of course, that the people are gay. Gasp!

    Oh horror, there are gay human beings that are citizens of these United States!
    But, do they deserve equal treatment under the law? That's the question.
    Should we treat them as separate? Different? Other?
    Not in my opinion.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    @Flashback says "So we have two conflicting amendments to the Constitution. 10 and 14."

    Civil rights trump states rights each and every time. That's why the 14th Amendment exists and why it says "No State shall....deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", no matter how much Utah and the confederate states would prefer otherwise.

    You should read it sometime. Also read the 9th Amendment while you're at it, since it restricts the scope of the 10th Amendment.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    @Strachan

    Re: "Can you point to any specific instances where same sex marriage advocates have kept appealing until they found a "liberal judge"?"...

    That's easy. California (prop 8).

    Google "California Proposition 8 (2008)"... and read the history of litigation. WAY more than 200 words.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    My two cents:

    That there is no "harm" in those states is debatable. For example, churches who offer support to those with same-sex attraction that do not want to engage in homosexual activity are picketed, harassed, and even vandalized.

    There is ample additional evidence that those who "simply want the same rights as straight couples" engage in plenty of bigoted and harassing behavior against those who disagree with them. It is there is you care to actually look for it.

    We all have a right to our opinions. The true hypocrisy and lack of integrity is in a movement (LGBT) and political party (Democrats) that resort to name-calling and harassment of those who disagree with them.

    These are the reasons I am no longer a democrat and do not support SSM. My stance has nothing to do with homophobia or bigotry. It has everything to do with calling out bullying and using the courts to force one group's ideas and opinion on others...

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    So we have two conflicting amendments to the Constitution. 10 and 14. I guess a judge finally applied 10 to this matter. Read it sometime. Last I heard the 10th amendment hasn't been repealed.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    This is the first time that a judge has used the absurd argument that credible opponents have not dared use in a federal court - the "slippery slope" to incestuous unions. This decision will no doubt be overturned on appeal. Opponents of SSM are now 2-21 in court rulings. There are genetic reasons there are bans on incestuous unions. In Utah, cousins can marry, but only if beyond childbearing years.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    @RedWings

    "None of the things that you mention are synonymous with SSM."

    True, they highlight the hypocrisy of the anti-SSM "protect the children" argument, however.

    "Divoce exists because there is marriage."

    Divorce harms children. Where is the evidence that SSM harms anyone?

    "Divorce creates single mothers and single adults who may adopt."

    The law does not limit adoption to single adults who are single as a result of divorce though, does it?

    "that the vast majority of us who support traditional marriage"

    Same Sex couples ALSO support "traditional" marriage. There is no nefarious plot to force straights into immediate divorce once SSM is the law of the land.

    "To ignore these and rush headlong into a major societal change is not a good approach."

    SSM has been legal in Massachusetts for over 10 years, Connecticut since 2008 and Iowa and Vermont since 2009. This is not a "headlong rush" and the "societal" harm has NOT been proven.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    @ Schnee

    So you agree with me. I never said it only works one way did I?

    Just goes to show everyone knows it goes on and laws are nothing more than personal agenda from defacto political appointed "judges" aka puppets.

    He who has the most appointed judges sitting in the right courts on the right cases wins.

    It sure has nothing to do with what is actually in keeping with our constitution or what is best for our society in the long term when you look at history of civilizations and what contributed to their own destruction and I am not just referring to a single issue.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Sept. 4, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    @RedWings says: "SSM brings a whole new set of ideas, morals, rules, and problems."

    Like what, exactly? In every marriage equality state and every marriage equality country, the exact same laws apply the same way regardless of the relative gender of your spouse.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    my two cents:

    None of the things that you mention are synonymous with SSM.

    Divoce exists because there is marriage. They are opposites of each other. Divorce creates single mothers and single adults who may adopt. In some cases, divorce is necessary. And I believe you will find that the vast majority of us who support traditional marriage also oppose "no fault" divorce.

    SSM brings a whole new set of ideas, morals, rules, and problems. To ignore these and rush headlong into a major societal change is not a good approach. We finally have found a judge that understands this.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 4, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    @Liberty For Me, er, All

    "This is great news as the judge clearly identifies the importance of marriage linking children to their biological parents."

    Meaningless platitudes, pure hypocrisy, and lack of integrity. Until the anti-SSM take as strong a stand against divorce, single mothers, and adoption by single adults the argument that prohibiting SSM is based on the needs of the children is just top cover for the right's dislike of anything "Gay".

    "We need more people of faith like this Louisiana Federal Judge "

    What part of "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" are you struggling with?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    @Anti Government
    "They will just keep appealing it until they find a liberal judge to over-rule it. "

    Um... Utah is repeatedly appealing hoping to find enough conservative judges to over-rule the lower court decisisons.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    @ Strachan
    re: "Can you point to any specific instances where same sex marriage advocates have kept appealing until they found a "liberal judge"?"

    See Sevcik. Nevada's marriage and child protection amendment is being argued on Monday at the appellate level in the 9th circuit. Judge hopping for liberals. Looks like they indeed may have hit the jackpot.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    This is great news as the judge clearly identifies the importance of marriage linking children to their biological parents. Harms to innocent helpless children are so often overlooked with 'adult centric SSM friendships can be marriages too' activist model. The democratic process is the best way to protect what time and eternity has shown best for the raising of children, a mother and father. Preventing harm is a legitimate interest of the state. The ruling identified the harm to society if the marriage door is opened to marriage of siblings to their parents and anyone who proclaims they love each other.

    We can see elections matter in judicial appointments. We need more people of faith like this Louisiana Federal Judge who actually understands the real meaning of marriage and rules based on facts, plain common sense, even what is right and wholesome rather than giving into trends or the fads of the liberal agenda or other activist judges.

  • Strachan Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    @Anti-Government

    Can you point to any specific instances where same sex marriage advocates have kept appealing until they found a "liberal judge"?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    @MDurfee

    We need to rid of judges who disagree with your positions, right? That's what the judiciary is supposed to do - check with MDurfee in Orem, Utah before rendering decisions.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    Judge Feldman skipped a critical step in applying rational basis review.

    Feldman explains rational basis review: the "classification drawn by the statute [must be] rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

    Louisiana asserts two interests: "linking children with intact families formed by their biological parents, and...ensuring that fundamental social change occurs by social consensus through democratic processes." These meet the low threshold of 'legitimate state interest'. And in the abstract, these are not irrational aspirations for society.

    But that is not enough.

    The 'rational' in rational basis review applies to the connection between the type of people the state singles out for disparate treatment and the achievement of these goals -- not merely the goals themselves.

    In Romer, SCOTUS clarifies: "By requiring that the classification bear a rational relationship to an independent and legitimate legislative end, we ensure that classifications are not drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law."

    Feldman provides no analysis or explanation for concluding there is a rational relationship between excluding same-sex couples from marriage and Louisiana's stated interests.

    On appeal, this will be be remanded with instructions to Feldman akin to a math teacher: "show your work".

  • MDurfee OREM, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    It's nice that at least one judge has read the constitution and understands the powers granted to the states. We need a way to get rid of activist judges that legislate from the bench.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    Sept. 4, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    They will just keep appealing it until they find a liberal judge to over-rule it. That is how the "law" is determined these days.

    Just find a judge who has a personal agenda that supports your issue and suddenly bam the law is changed in your favor.