When gay people can "naturally" reproduce another human being, I'll
call homosexuality natural and ordained by our Creator. Until then, I'll
call it something else.That said, I will hire you, be your neighbor,
play with your kids, invite you to parties and be your friend. Homophobic does
not apply to this commenter.Respectfully, I fight for traditional
marriage and wish you happiness and peace.
Did anyone actually read the ruling? He said that same-sex marriage may lead to
firstamendmentMARRIAGE legally sanctions, upholds, and enforces
relationships that are crucial for the survival of Humanity. .. Homosexual
relationships are primarily for personal interests. KJKCouldn't
the same be said for marriages where the woman is over 50? Where one party is
in jail? Where one/both have been sterilized? Why are these legal? We allow
drug abusers, child molesters, wife beaters, etc… to marry and have kids
without batting an eye, yet you are all upset over loving, law abiding gays
getting married…even if they don't adopt?John Locke… the gay community, was about 1-2%....We are a Judeo-Christian country,
founded on the principles and beliefs of the scriptures. The majority cannot be
ignored..KJKActive LDS constitute the same %. Since America was
founded on Protestant principles, should we LDS expect that the wishes of the
majority be ignored when asking for equal treatment? Since they don't
believe in temple ordinances, could they forbid the construction of temples?
Why should we LDS demand Equal Protection and Due Process but look for ways to
deny it to gays?
@Frozen MARRIAGE legally sanctions, upholds, and enforces relationships
that are crucial for the survival of Humanity. Homosexuals are free to love but
it is wrong to push everyone into enforcing relationships that have only
personal/selfish interests. Homosexuals can't have children
together, heterosexuals can. No Judge (including Vaughn) NOR ANY INDIVIDUAL has
any business determining which heterosexuals can have children. My sister was
told she would never have children due to an accident. She had children
naturally. We should let the people decide this crucial issue. :)
That is a simple freedom. No judge shouold have the right to push their
morality on the States. It does not matter how many studies are
suppressed, manipulated etc. It is perfectly clear that homosexuality is not
best for children. If it were, homosexuals would have been created with, or
evolved, the ability to procreate. We should be kind, but research
shows that promoting homosexuality is harmful for our children& humanity
(gays included :)). For activists marriage is not about forwarding
children or humanity. Nor is it about "Civil Rights," visiting rights,
rights to work, or any other rights. Gay marriage is about promoting sexuality
which the State of UT has no interest in.
I look forward to the Supreme Court ruling against gay-marriage bans, so we can
all move on and find something else to argue about.
@Light and Liberty "However, both of us have a civil right to vote for
whatever things we want and make it a part of the laws of this country. "You're incorrect. The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to
withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to
place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as
legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and
property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and
other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the
outcome of NO elections.In Loving v. Virginia (1967) a main argument
was that race had EVERYTHING to do with the 'supposed purpose' of
marriage. Mixed-race children would suffer from poor social treatment and
polygamous or incest marriages would be next. Those arguments along with the
relevance of immutable characteristics, were not enough to save the interracial
marriage ban. Today, It's hard to see how non-existant children "who
can't even be born from same-sex couples" would suffer any worse of a
@MikhailJudge Posner said that Indiana and Wisconsin were hurting
the adopted children of same-sex couples without good reason. He said:
"Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the
courts; the recourse is called constitutional law." The ruling dismissed
the state's argument that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry
because they can't conceive children together, noting that Wisconsin and
Indiana allow elderly couples to marry. Both states also forbid first cousins to
marry but make a specific exception to allow such marriages if the couples are
infertile. The decision similarly rejected arguments that gay
marriage should be restricted because of tradition, with Posner noting
cannibalism and foot-binding are long-standing traditions in some cultures.
Posner said he was not considering any possible moral arguments for or against
gay marriage because none was advanced by either state.Judge Posner
said the states' legal arguments were "so full of holes that it cannot
be taken seriously." - I agree.
@MikhailFifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court
has stated that marriage is a established fundamental right of ALL individuals.
In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice
in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the
Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness
by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the
State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” The last
case was Windsor v. US. It is well-established and crystal clear
that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy,
association, and identity.Along with the 9th and 7th circuit court
of appeals, SCOTUS has applied heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation (Romer
v. Evans) as described in Smith Kline v. Beecham. While there indeed has been
ample opportunity to do so, the rational for discriminatory laws have failed
even rational basis. As you may know, the court simply doesn't go farther
than it needs to when confronted with irrational argumentation.
"In light of still-binding precedent, this Court declines to fashion a new
suspect class. To do so would distort precedent and demean the democratic
process." "The Court also hesitates with the notion that
this state's choice could only be inspired by hate and intolerance.
Louisiana unquestionably respected 'a statewide deliberative process that
allowed its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex
marriage.'"ROBICHEAUX v. CALDWELLApparently, other courts
of review disagree with this. Let's see what SCOTUS says.
@5th Amendment"What do you think "must respect the
constitutional rights of persons" and "subject to those guarantees"
actually means?"Answer: An established and acknowledged
constitutional right.Question: Where is the established and
acknowledged constitutional right for people of the same sex to marry? Windsor: cricket's chirpingWhat court decisions support same
sex orientation as a protected class? Answer: "They fail,
however, to recognize that neither the Supreme Court northe Fifth Circuit
has ever before defined sexual orientation as aprotected class, despite
opportunities to do so. See, e.g.,Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (majority
opinion); Romer, 517 U.S. 620;Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir.
2004); see also Baskinv. Bogan, Nos. 14-355, 14-404 & 14-406, 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS86114, at *34-*35 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014)"
Light and Liberty" :Does your democratic process include the
courts and "unconstitutional?
5th Amendment: You are confused. You have your opinion when the
"debate" is over. You are free, just as I am, to express your opinion.
I never said being chaste was something that I wanted codified in law. However,
both of us have a civil right to vote for whatever things we want and make it a
part of the laws of this country. No one is being denied their civil rights when
society codifies into law something that anyone might find disagreeable. There
are a lot of things I find repulsive, but I go along with it because I believe
in Democracy. Do you? I hope you aren't trying to deny me my right to
vote because it appears that you not only don't want to allow some people
to vote, you are determined to deny them even the expression of that right in a
free deomcracy. Ranchhand: Thanks for your opinion. I absolutely
give you that right, but I sense a little animus toward me for expressing my
opinion. You don't have to live up to my version of Chastity, nor do I
hope that you want to compel me to live your definition.
@MikhailDirectly from Windsor "State laws defining and
regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of
persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to
those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an
area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States.”What do you think "must respect the constitutional
rights of persons" and "subject to those guarantees" actually means?
@Mikhail"he chooses to carefully and logically follow legal
precedent"Except he chose to follow the dissent, not the
majority opinions in legal precedents, for example, quote John Roberts, or
Kelly, who are the dissenters in Windsor and UT, OK cases. in another way, he
chose to ignore the rulings and majority opinions in Windsor and 10th circuit
UT, OK cases.You can extol this judge all you want, but still can
not change the fact that his ruling is the ONLY one against SSM after many many
more rulings in favor of SSM.
If you haven't read the written decision of the court in Louisiana, you
should - even if the word processor or typewriter has spacing problems. The
judge seems to have no motivation to satisfy fashion. Rather, he chooses to
carefully and logically follow legal precedent - which is every judge's
job. He points out that there is no legal precedent for providing sexual
orientation as a "fundamental right." He also points out that choosing
to follow psychological studies is a slippery slope. His reasoning is clear and
carefully set forth. He repeatedly goes to the Windsor case - where it was
pointed out that the state has the right to determine the definition of
marriage.Those who are advocates for SSM should study up on the
legal precedent on this, and related issues. This matter will come down to the
definition - under legal precedent - of "fundamental right" and
"rational basis." Regardless of your opinion on what these terms should
mean, the judges need to look at the legal precedent to justify their decision.
@Cats;"Common sense: The collection of prejudices one accrues
after the age of 18". --- Albert EinsteinIn any
case, it's about the LAW, not "common sense".Light and
Liberty says:"I don't see any irony because there
isn't any irony. An unchaste life is any sexual relations outside of
marriage, which according to most Christians is between a man and a
women."--- I'm not a Christian and according to the law,
we're not a theocracy so your "chaste" requirements apply to you,
nobody else. Your god didn't define anyting as he doesn't exist
(debate not over). Also, if "chaste" is being married, then by
definition, SS couples who are married are "chaste".
Aurelius maximus:"Hmmm..seeing as the country was founded by
religious persons seeking refuge from religious persecution. I am sure that a
lot of the original laws that were established were in respect of God's
laws."---------Just the opposite is true--because
they were not allowed to worship as they wanted to in England because of laws
passed there, our Founders made sure that all were allowed to worship (or not
worship) as they pleased and made sure that there were no laws regarding
religious requirements. Unless you want to go back to the Puritans
and see the crazy way they carried out their religious laws (Witch trials,
etc.), you would need to look to those who wrote our constitution. Why
didn't they incorporate the 10 commandments in it? Why is it only a
framework of laws to be built upon if they wanted all of us to believe in God
and obey him? Could it be that they did not agree on what religious laws were
to be codified? Could it be that they are smarter than some of us here who
still want to codify our beliefs into laws?
@ Light and Liberty "God has revealed His word. Debate over."Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of
society. Differing faiths, ministers, and individuals can define marriage for
themselves. At issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once
the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it
must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based
limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it.
Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it
constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without
other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our
individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government
from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was
written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and
freedom FROM it.
Ranchhand: I don't see any irony because there isn't any irony. An
unchaste life is any sexual relations outside of marriage, which according to
most Christians is between a man and a women. It doesn't matter whether
society changes that definition, God hasn't. So, SSM is considered
Unchaste. Simple. Furry: To equate SSM to "inter-racial"
marriage is shallow. Race is culturally defined. Blacks and whites are of the
same race. Racism is a learned behavior that basically divides people for some
perceived cultural bias based on the color of skin, etc. The counsel to marry
someone with the same values, color of skin, income level, goals, etc.,
isn't bad counsel. If someone misunderstands that counsel as a reason to be
a racist, then that is their problem, not the person giving counsel. When you
consider the times in the sixties, it probably was pretty good counsel. The
black and White races weren't exactly getting along. I wouldn't advise
my son to marry a rich man's daughter either. Am I biased against rich
people. No. A man marrying another man is quite different. God has revealed His
word. Debate over.
Finally a judge with some common sense.
@greatbam22 1:38 p.m. Sept. 4, 2014'"Anything else was
considered both illegal and contrary to the will of God." It
certain states this may have been believed but I can't imagine that this
was a national sentiment.'I was 19 years old when the LOVING
case was decided. I have personal knowledge of what the national sentiment
concerning mixed-race marriage was at the time. The sentiment of the country,
religious and civil, was that it was wrong and immoral to marry someone not of
your own race. In lots of states it was illegal. It was considered scandalous
and immoral, and contrary to God's will and rules. Just like I said.-------------------------@cjb 10:44 a.m. Sept. 4, 2014"please explain how calling gay relationships marriage will affect
your marriage negatively."Excuse me for butting into this
conversation, but I had something I anted to contribute. Today is my 45th
wedding anniversary. Calling gay relationships marriage will have absolutely no
affect on my marriage, positive or negative. The only things that affect my
marriage are the things my husband and I do.
@ Aurelius maximusre: "...... a talk by President Thomas S.
Monson "Stand in Holy Places" in his talk he talks much about the world
and the changes in morality over the years.One of his quotes goes as
follow: "Although the world has changed, the laws of God remain constant.
They have not changed; they will not change. The Ten Commandments are just
that;commandments. They are not suggestions. They are every bit as requisite
today as they were when God gave them to the children of Israel."The problem may very well be that not all of President Monsons talks have been
codified into our nations civil laws.
@ Cougarre: "They are not denied any rights; it's just that
marriage is between a man and a woman and should stay that way."Folks said the exact same thing about interracial marriage bans, and mixing of
the races. One then has to ask, what rights were interracial couples being
denied? Thinking cap on here.... What rights could they be?Light comes on brightly in my head. Drum roll:- The same
exact rights interracial couples, felons, and folks who did want to procreate
were denied. -
@ Bob A. Bohey"It seems clear to me that people who speak of
"god laws" simply do not understand this issue or this country's
laws at even a fundamental level."Hmmm..seeing as the country
was founded by religious persons seeking refuge from religious persecution. I
am sure that a lot of the original laws that were established were in respect of
God's laws.Your comment reminded me of a talk by President
Thomas S. Monson "Stand in Holy Places" in his talk he talks much about
the world and the changes in morality over the years.One of his
quotes goes as follow: "Although the world has changed, the laws of God
remain constant. They have not changed; they will not change. The Ten
Commandments are just that—commandments. They are not suggestions. They
are every bit as requisite today as they were when God gave them to the children
"--- Bigotry and discrimination are never the "right
decision"."I agree with you on that. However, not extending
the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples is neither bigotry nor
discrimination. They are not denied any rights; it's just that marriage is
between a man and a woman and should stay that way. To say otherwise is like me
complaining that as a male I am being discriminated against because I will never
get to be a Queen.
It seems clear to me that people who speak of "god laws" simply do not
understand this issue or this country's laws at even a fundamental level.
One would get a better conversation speaking to rock rather than those who spout
off about "gods laws".
@Riverton CougarBut whose religious belief should be codified into
civil marriage law?"LGBT men and women will continue to be
vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate
and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to
heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only
accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you
are, and the church can do no less." 2014 Episcopal Proclamation -
Daedalus, Stephen’s 2 posts show why the past 20 rulings, by both liberals
and conservatives, have favored SSM. There is no “rational basis”
for denying SSM. Animus and religion are the only rationales. They don’t
qualify as legally legit reasons so SSM opponents try to use children, but as
others have shown, SSM has no effect on the relationships between straight
couples and their kids, nor does it logically incent straight couples to
reproduce less. Since gays meet the 4 requirements of being a
suspect class (History of Discrimination, A Discrete Minority, Immutable
Characteristics, Political Power), laws limiting their rights have to meet at
least heightened scrutiny rather than rational basis scrutiny. They can’t
even meet that latter.Not allowing SSM vs. simply allowing them to
live together advances no state interest. Since not allowing it prevents kids
in same-sex households from having the same rights and protections that other
kids have, it harms kids and therefore contrary to states’ interest.An activist judge is someone who rules based on their own subjective bias
rather than on the facts and the law. Judge Feldman, by definition, is an
regreatbam22andrews afb, MDWhen I said, .."please explain how calling gay relationships marriage will affect your
marriage negatively."What I was looking for from you, is for to
give to me a believable explanation of exactly what I was asking for.Rather than do that, you said the following,"So what you are
saying to me is that you aren't for honest debate you are more interested
in just shutting me up".
Judge Richard Posner, writing for unanimous 7th Circuit, today:"The challenged [WI and ID SSM-bans] discriminate against a minority
defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states
put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children
don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children,
intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken
seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the
parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by
their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against
same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the
discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny..."BTW - Posner is a conservative of the old school.
@greatbam22;You totally ignore the argument that marriage has
already been defined and that definition is defined as a 1 man and as many woman
as he can get (per the bible), and one man and his property. YOU changed it to
one-one only."A large majority people in many states hold
..."--- Then they can marry someone of the opposite gender.
The "majority" does not get to take away rights from the minority.@Liberty For All;I guess those adopted children aren't
in real families. Shame on you.@greatbam22;Its not that
you "think differently" that makes a bigot, the problem is that
you're trying to force others to adhere to your beliefs.Did you
bother to read the DN article today listing all the LGBT people fired for being
LGBT?@tabuno;Per the US Constitution, states may not
give one group of citizens legal protections it denys another group.
@ Furry1993Yes, I understand that laws regarding marriage have gone
through some changes through time prohibiting and then allowing different
circumstances and occurrences.The fact is Marriage has involved two
parties. A man and A woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman or
anything else other than a man and a woman.Yes, you can reference
polygamy but I think most people I have interacted with don't use polygamy
and marriage interchangeably."Anything else was considered both
illegal and contrary to the will of God." It certain states
this may have been believed but I can't imagine that this was a national
The U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Rodriguez (1973) held that an education was
not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and that Texas did not have
to provide exactly equal funding for education for each school district in
Texas. It was up to the State Legislature to address this matter. As for gay
marriages, there also is no legal precedent inherent in the U.S. Constitution
that defines an individual's right to marry a person of the same sex as a
fundamental right. It can be argued, like a right to education, that the State
has the primary legal authority and responsibility to define how such education
and marriage is to be conceived in their state and that for a Court to decide
otherwise might be considered an unconstitutional use of legislative, not
judicial exercise of power. Advocates of gay marriage may need to reserve their
optimism that the U.S. Supreme Court would so easily adopt the positions of the
vast majority of federal and state judicial opinions overturning state marriage
@cjb"please explain how calling gay relationships marriage will
affect your marriage negatively."Since you said please...I have read on DN boards that I am a bigot from people because my views
don't conform perfectly with yours. To me that is just calling me a free
thinker. So what you are saying to me is that you aren't for honest debate
you are more interested in just shutting me up.I have already seen
the constricting of ideas and beliefs in society because of this whole debate.
Mostly they have been going against people who are religious in nature.It is interesting how so called "liberals" are not very liberal when
it comes to people who think differently than they do.I can see that
in the future that I will have to be careful in what that I say because it is
already evident in today's world the lack of tolerance in sharing ones
views regarding a subject.Look at Brendan Eich for example. He was
fired just because he supported Prop 8. Do you think his firing hurt his
marriage? Who says that won't happen to more people?
@ PJB Newsgram. "...while marriage between two people of the same gender is
not essential to our existence because of biological realities."Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) SCOTUS established a
fundamental right not to procreate. Care to try again?
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.
Daedalus, Stephen: I disagree. It meets the highest threshold of society, a
threshold that has been around for thousands of years, and even before that, as
the most stable influence for society's growth and development the world
has ever known. There is no government in the history of mankind that has been
able to promote a more steady medium for human progress. It can't promote
it because it was not invented by it, had no understanding of how to do it, but
which was inherently accepted by it as the best means for the propagation of the
species, as well as offering the best protection for the growth and development
of children. Government's have tried to change it, bend it, break it,
redefine it, but human nature cannot be changed. Humans naturally inclined
itself toward it because of its usefulness and enduring quality. Indeed, it is
the only form of family that can help the human family. All other attempts are
futile,including the inferior sham of SSM. Whether the courts decide in its
favor or not, marriage between a man and a women is the highest threshold for
human rights, responsibilities, and possibilities.
Well Greatbam22,The Supreme Courts already allowed/defined the term
"Marriage" to include same-sex couples when it ruled Section 3 of DOMA
was unconstitutional.And it doesn't matter if "a large
majority in many states" don't agree - it's unconstitutional!
All, yes all, major polls conclude that the majority of US Citizens support
marriage equality for gay couples. Additionally, over 44% of US citizens live
in states that allow gay marriage.ps: I was legally Married to my
same-sex husband prior to Prop 8 in CA in 2008. I've been with the same
man for 19 years. Just how has our legal Marriage negatively affected you in
any way, is been over six years now? Oh, I was also raised in a dedicated
Mormon family in Idaho.
re greatbam22 andrews afb, MDGod established marriage?
Okay, I can agree.Given that you insist that opposition to gay
marriage is somehow a defense of traditional marriage, please explain how
calling gay relationships marriage will affect your marriage negatively.
People who claim that marriage was institued by God, usually refer to Genesis. A
book that was written about 1,400 B.C.However, the Code of
Hammurabi's that was written about 1,800 BC talks about "marriage"
in terms of a "transaction". "128. If a man has taken a wife and has
not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife." (Code of
Hammurabi )it is interesting that the same code also talks about
concubines having children. Therefore marriage and progeny are not mutually
inclusive. We can see that in the book of Genesis in the story of Abraham and
Hagar and many others e.g. David, Solomon.Interestingly enough, we can
find evidence of marriage as back as 2,350 B.C. again as a business transaction
by which a man "owned" a woman. Children in marriage was
secondary, and we can see several examples in the Bible, Abraham, Jacob, Joshua.
Their wives wanted to have children but these men were happy with them for what
@greatbam22 10:03 a.m. Sept. 4, 2014Prior to 1967, marriage had
already been defined and that definition was defined as people of the same race.
A large majority people in many states held to the definition that a Marriage
is between two people of the same race because that was what the word had been
defined as to constitute. Anything else was considered both illegal and
contrary to the will of God. That argument didn't hold Constitutional
muster, and same-race laws were struck down.Your argument. which
uses the same reasoning, is neither persuasive or valid.
@ RanchhandYou totally ignore the argument that marriage has already
been defined and that definition is defined as a 1 man and 1 woman.It is up to the Supreme Court to decide to allow for the redefinition of
marriage as you would like to occur.A large majority people in many
states hold to the definition that a Marriage is between 1 woman and 1 man
because that is what the word has been defined as to constitute.
@greatbam22;The only "mockery" to marriage is those who
violate your marriage vows.Your "god" didn't define
anything (it doesn't exist). The US is not a theocracy and the definitions
of your "god" are irrelevant. Don't you get it? You do NOT get to
use your beliefs in your "god" to violate the rights of other citizens.
The only "mockery" here is your mockery of the US Constitution.@Light and Liberty;Would we still be "unchaste" if we were
allowed to marry? Ironically you don't see the hypocrisy of your
position.Again, your god is irrelevant.
As others have already pointed out, Judge Feldman skipped a critical step.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".
I don't see this decision standing up to any challenges. It was based on
pretty faulty reasoning. Dismissing Loving as a precedent and allowing the
majority to decide what rights a minority should have are both just specious. I
suspect this decision will be a minor glitch.
Some say that marriage is about having kids and since gays can’t reproduce
together, they don’t have a right to marry. Should women over 50 have a
right to (re)marry? Should those with vasectomies or hysterectomies? Would you
support laws denying marriage to such? Should couples be required to reproduce
within 5 years of marriage or have their marriage license revoked? Why should
such be allowed marriage when they are no different than gay couples regarding
reproduction?Marriage, whether gay or straight, strengthens society
by having people depend on each other rather than government. Marriage offers
children rights and protections. Gays will always have kids through adoption or
IVF, whether or not SSM is allowed. Denying the kids of gays those rights and
protections objectively harms those kids. It harms adults and society as well.
Religion and animus are the only rationalization for denying SSM.
It is interesting that SSM advocates talk about the "dehumanizing"
affect of this ruling, but will not even allow someone to talk about, let alone
outlaw, the "dehumanizing" affects of an unchaste life. What was once
considered by society as an extreme violation of God's laws is now
accepted, even by those who consider themselves Christians,by them as normal and
healthy. There is none so blind as those who will not see.
@ cbj"It is wrong to believe that opposition to gay marriage is
in any way a defense of traditional marriage. How someone could believe this is
a testament to the ability of someone to say something out of left field and
others will blindly believe and follow because they don't bother to think
the issue out."It is not. Gay marriage is a mockery of marriage
because it is God who established it the way it to be. It is taking something
that has been defined for thousands of years.Also just because some
treat marriage as just another relationship doesn't mean we need to just
redefine it to include LGBT persons.To many marriage has and is been
ordained of God and therefore how it is defined should be kept as it is.
@toosmartforyou Shelby did not issue the stay due to the AG's office not
being properly prepared and providing an extremely weak legal argument to
support their position. Let's also not forget that the 10th Circuit did not
issue a stay again to the weakness of the states case. It wasn't until the
AGs office petitioned SCOTUS did the state receive a stay.
@technos 12:35 a.m. Sept. 4, 2014One's sexuality is not a
behavior, although one's sexual behavior relates back to one's
sexuality. I have been straight all my life, even as a child before I knew what
my reactions meant. I was straight as a teenager even though I was celebate
prior to marriage. I have been straight throughout my married life. If my
husband were to die and I didn't remarry, I would be celebate AND I would
still be straight.Sexuality address the gender to which a person has
a sexual and affectional affinity. Behavior addresses the actions a person
takes as a result of that affinity. They are two separate things.=======================the arguments behind gay marriage need to
be half way honest.----------The arguments are totally
and completely honest. Only a lack of true understanding of the subject would
cause a person to reach a contrary belief.
Riverton Cougar says: "It's nice to finally see the right
decision being made,..."--- Bigotry and discrimination are never
the "right decision"."...(as God has defined it)...be
intolerant of my beliefs"--- The US is not a theocracy, your
god and beliefs have no standing or relevance. They apply to you and you alone,
no other citizen has to adhere to your "beliefs" or your
"god".PJB says:"...marriage...is essential
to our existence ..."--- Uhm, no. SEX is essential to our
survival, marriage is not. Marriage has nothing to do with sex.technos says:"...addresses concerns of those who do not
approve of gay marriage. "If you don't approve of gay
marriage, don't have one. Simple. BTW, religion is also a
"behavior" (and it's protected).
@ mcdugall, I didn't say I agreed with either Feldman or Shelby or what I
think will eventually happen or what I think should happen. I only said that
Shelby is the only magistrate in the country that refused to grant a stay
pending appeal and that he created a real mess for those caught in the
transition from legal, to being stayed, to being in question should it be
over-turned. Why were all the others judges in the country that have ruled upon
it then stayed their ruling but Shelby didn't? I happen to know people
that fit into that problem and I don't feel they deserved such treatment.
Shelby blew it, plain and simple, by refusing to grant a stay. That's all
Seems to me many people equate biology with religion with civil rights.Just because its usually takes one male and one female to make a baby, does
not make such a scientific fact an element of religion. It is fact, and
religion is belief. And just because a religious belief comes from the elders
or books of the religion does not make that belief a basis for law in secular
society. We are not a theocracy yet, so that one's particular religious
practices and outlooks do not dictate what civil law could or should be.
Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law, and some views are just plain
ignorant regarding secular government and, indeed, science.
It looks like the Supreme Court will decide this eventually.It is
wrong to believe that opposition to gay marriage is in any way a defense of
traditional marriage. How someone could believe this is a testament to the
ability of someone to say something out of left field and others will blindly
believe and follow because they don't bother to think the issue out.However, unfortunately gay marriage and gays being able to adopt
children who could otherwise have had a mother and a father seem to be tied
together. Adoption somewhat allowed even without gay marriage, but it will only
get worse. How people could get so uptight about what gay relationships are
called and not care about gay adoption is evidence to me how illogical and
unthinking people can be sometimes.
>>Judge Feldman's notion of a rational basis is completely
irrational. It is doomed to fail on appeal.Perhaps, but for that to
happen, the higher courts now will have to do something they've skirted to
date -- explain *on legal grounds* why a state's claim of "legitimate
interest in limiting marriage to couples who could biologically have a
child" is irrational. Arguments about unequal tax breaks, etc. are a weak
foundation because such thing are often justifiable *if* there's a
rational, defensible, overriding state interest. So Feldman's ruling will
drive the higher courts to focus heavily on the law and logic to make sure that
judgements in favor of same-sex marriage aren't just “a pageant of
empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos.”That's what Feldman essentially admits he's trying to do, and
it's as it should be. Making sure the focus stays on logic and the law will
ensure that any final ruling, whatever it may be, will be on very strong legal
This really needs to be the decision that makes it to the supreme court for
deciding gay marriage, because it logically addresses concerns of those who do
not approve of gay marriage. All we have seen up to this point is a bunch of
judges rubber-stamping the pro-gay marriage decisions. Somebody
needs to call up Utah's attorney general and tell them this is how the case
needs to be approached. Sorry gays, but when the day is done, sexuality is a
behavior, and the courts will have to come to terms with that fact. There is no
'gay gene' and the shallow arguments for it don't address the
other initials in your movement - the B's T's and Q's. I know
it's hard to believe, but I'm not anti-gay. Just that the arguments
behind gay marriage need to be half way honest.
Are people really going to side with the South when it comes to a civil rights
issue? Good luck explaining that to your grandchildren
There's clearly a reason "no other federal judge has ruled that way at
the trial level." Judge Feldman conducted a "Rational Basis Review"
of the State's supposed justification for the ban, but left out the
rational analysis part.Louisiana argued successfully in court that
marriage is the institution that can make a family. And yet, Louisiana has
legal same-sex co-parent adoption. So, clearly, the State claiming it needs to
restrict marriage to heterosexual couples for [mumble, mumble, think of the
children, mumble] reason, is being completely dishonest. They have no interest
at all in preventing children from being adopted by unmarried same-sex couples.
They already allow that, as long as the couple files two separate sets of
adoption papers. That fact alone blows the State's supposedly
"rational" reason completely out of the water, or in this case, into the
swamp.The judge erred in ignoring pertinent facts, accepting an
irrational argument under Rational Basis review. He also erred in basing his
order primarily on the dissenting opinions (losing side) of four higher-court
cases. Read the opinion. It's comedy gold.
Glad to see at least one judge recognizes biological facts
@ PJB NewsgramWhile the concept of marriage may be a fundamental
part of our form of society, it certainly isn't required for the human
species to survive. Also, the suggestion that allowing 3-5% of the population
to marry would threaten the capacity of the remaining 95-97% to procreate at a
sustainable level is just plain silly.
I am disappointed to learn that this judge put forth such weak and irrational
arguments, but then I don't know what I'm expecting - there are no
strong or rational ones. Most disappointing, though, was to learn that he
equated gay marriage with incest. I expect more objective thinking from a
federal judge, but this just goes to show how a deeply ingrained bias can derail
even the most analytical of minds.I don't agree that animus
underlies most opposition to SSM, but beliefs like the one revealed by this
judge definitely have a corrosive, dehumanizing quality to them. I
wouldn't believe him if he sincerely denied viewing homosexuals as inferior
beings. It's in this regard that I think the opposition to SSM is no
different from that seen to interracial marriage. For many, a homosexual
orientation is viewed like black skin was back then - as a marker of intrinsic
inferiority.I think prejudice can exist without animus and I think
one can sincerely fail to recognize it for what it is. But this does not
mitigate its harmfulness. And when you're being harmed, it feels
indistinguishable from animus.
Thank you, Louisiana!!!!@PJB Newsgram. Eloquently and succinctly
stated. Thank you, too.
@Jeff Harris You have turned the issue upside down. The reason marriage is
"one of the 'basic civil rights of man'" according to Loving
v. Virginia is that marriage is "fundamental to our existence and
survival." Marriage between a man and woman is one of the most universal
institutions that transcends a particular religion and is essential to our
existence and survival, while marriage between two people of the same gender is
not essential to our existence because of biological realities. If the reasoning
for the right no longer exists, then how is it a fundamental right? There is a
distinction between race and behavior, since race does not change the basic
notion of existence or continuation of mankind. I would say more fully that
civilized existence is most likely obtained by children being raised by their
biological parents and it is rational for societies to incentivize the
maintenance and creation of such a unit. Also under rational basis review the
interest only needs to be conceivable, not necessarily proven.
I wonder if Louisiana allows single parent adoption like they do in Utah.
That'd wreck that whole "children deserve a mother and father"
argument...Regardless, marriage is not about children. There's
no requirement that a couple who gets married must have kids nor is there a
requirement that kids can only be born in marriages. So that argument is
completely worthless.As for the slippery slope argument, he acts as
if same-sex marriage would be the precedent but we already have the precedent
when the courts imposed interracial marriage on the states. The only reason
people against same-sex marriage ignore that detail is because they generally
approve of inter-racial marriage and don't want to suggest that Loving vs.
Virginia should've gone the other way.
In his ruling, Judge Feldman tells us that the state has a rational basis for
denying same-sex couples equal protection under the law, because the state
believes that denying gay couples the freedom marry will somehow provide
children with two biological parents. He doesn't tell us how denying
marriage to gay couples will or could accomplish this, but he insists that this
is a rational basis for denying gay citizens equal protection under the law. Utah's Attorney General Sean Reyes and his sidekick, Gene Schaerr,
should have been so lucky to find a judge who didn't need to make any
rational connection between the so-called objective and the content of the
law.Judge Feldman's notion of a rational basis is completely
irrational. It is doomed to fail on appeal.
It'll come to Louisiana; It'll come to Utah.
@toosmartforyou You realize Feldman is the only Federal Judge to rule in favor
of upholding a states "right" to limit civil rights? The rest have in
ruled in against state bans on SSM. Also, it's not Shelby you should find
issue with, it's the AG's office who showed clear incompetence with
not being prepared. @Riverton Cougar You have every right to have
those beliefs. The issue is using the institution of Government to limit civil
rights. Since Married couples have special tax and property ownership rights
that non-married couples do not have, the states are preventing same sex couples
from having these same special rights.
It's nice to finally see the right decision being made, and I hope the
Supreme Court makes the right decision when the case gets to them.I
am not anti-gay or a gay hater, so do not define me that way. I just see
marriage as a holy, sacred union of a man and a woman (as God has defined it)
and I find that calling two homosexuals who want to get married to each other as
a different thing from what a marriage is or should be. Go ahead and hate me and
be intolerant of my beliefs, I will not compromise my standards.
What a pity that Judge Feldman doesn't sit on the bench in Salt Lake City.
Then this interim mess that was created when Judge Shelby refused to grant a
stay, knowing it would be appealed and eventually heard by the US Supreme Court,
would have been avoided. No matter how this turns out Judge Shelby isn't
going to look very brilliant in legal circles.