Quantcast

Comments about ‘Federal judge upholds Louisiana's same-sex marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Sept. 4 2014 9:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anti Government
Alpine, UT

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.

MDurfee
OREM, UT

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.

Daedalus, Stephen
ARVADA, CO

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".

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@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.

Strachan
Bountiful, UT

@Anti-Government

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

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

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.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

@ 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.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@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?

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

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.

skrekk
Dane, WI

@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.

Anti Government
Alpine, UT

@ 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.

my_two_cents_worth
university place, WA

@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.

nonceleb
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

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.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

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...

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@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.

skrekk
Dane, WI

@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.

Ralph
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments