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.
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.
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".
@MDurfeeWe 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.
@Anti-GovernmentCan you point to any specific instances where same
sex marriage advocates have kept appealing until they found a "liberal
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.
@ Strachanre: "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
@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
@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?
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.
@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.
@ SchneeSo 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
@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.
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
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.
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...
@StrachanRe: "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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@ 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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@ 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
@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"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.
@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.
"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.
@Flashback 12:30 p.m. Sept. 4, 2014So 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.
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
@ 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?