Federal Judge Upholds Louisiana's Gay Marriage Ban - Polidicks

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/louisiana-gay-marriage-ban-upheld-by-federal-judge.html?_r=0[/url] [QUOTE]Both sides in the case, which consolidated multiple challenges to Louisiana’s same-sex marriage ban, had supported their arguments by pointing to the Supreme Court’s Defense of Marriage Act ruling. Lawyers for same-sex couples said the ruling in United States v. Windsor supported the contention that Louisiana’s failure to recognize legal same-sex marriages violates due process guarantees and equal-protection rights. The state argued that the Windsor opinion clearly upheld the rights of state voters and legislatures to define marriage and that the federal government must recognize the states’ rights to do so. Judge Feldman sided with the state.[/QUOTE] Well, that's an interesting take on the issue.....

uh oh

Nice to know this judge is human filth. Corruption, yay.

[QUOTE=Miskav;45882913]Nice to know this judge is human filth. Corruption, yay.[/QUOTE] Prove his ruling is incorrect.....

[QUOTE=Miskav;45882913]Nice to know this judge is human filth. Corruption, yay.[/QUOTE] I disagree with him too, but just because he has a different opinion than us doesn't mean he's taking cocaine bribes or something. There's a reason why the Supreme Court isn't entirely composed of people with the same beliefs.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45882973]Prove his ruling is incorrect.....[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B] "The Court is persuaded that a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years, and prevails in a majority of states today, is not universally irrational on the constitutional grid,"[/B] U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, wrote.[/QUOTE] Appeal to traditionalism isn't sufficient enough for a ruling. Would this judge have voted to continue the practice of slavery? It was an institution around for thousands of years and about half the states at the time supported it. [QUOTE] The court "hesitates with the notion that this state's choice could only be inspired by hate and intolerance," the judge wrote, holding that Louisiana "has a legitimate interest ... whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others ... in [B]linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents."[/B][/QUOTE] "We don't hate you, we just don't think you would be good enough parents as these heterosexuals over here". [QUOTE]Feldman said that "inconvenient questions persist" about the recognition of same-sex marriage and posed a few [B]slippery-slope[/B] questions of his own. "For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs," he wrote.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant slippery-slope nonsense.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;45883020]I disagree with him too, but just because he has a different opinion than us doesn't mean he's taking cocaine bribes or something. There's a reason why the Supreme Court isn't entirely composed of people with the same beliefs.[/QUOTE] He's against being a decent person and against the rights of gay people. That's all I need to know to hate him.

[QUOTE]Feldman said that "inconvenient questions persist" about the recognition of same-sex marriage and posed a few slippery-slope questions of his own. "For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female?[B] All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another[/B], just like the plaintiffs," he wrote.[/QUOTE] Holy shit. He fucking points out the most important part of marriage, while trying to make a point against it.

He's without a doubt corrupt. So close to my state being less terrible; Alas, it cannot happen with a governor that spends more time out of state than and is too busy trying for president(which he'll never win spoiler)

[QUOTE=Raidyr;45883388]Appeal to traditionalism isn't sufficient enough for a ruling. Would this judge have voted to continue the practice of slavery? It was an institution around for thousands of years and about half the states at the time supported it. "We don't hate you, we just don't think you would be good enough parents as these heterosexuals over here". Irrelevant slippery-slope nonsense.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]In his ruling, Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of Federal District Court said that the regulation of marriage was left up to the states and the democratic process; that no fundamental right was being violated by the ban; and that Louisiana had a “legitimate interest ... whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others ... in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents.”[/QUOTE] Sexual orientation does not have [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class"]protected class status[/URL], and is therefore not protected under the 14th amendment [B]UNLESS[/B] (this is where the DOMA ruling kicks in) an individual state has declared sexual orientation a "protected class". Then, those people are shielded [B]from[/B] the federal government under the 5th and 14th amendments when it comes to matters of sexual orientation. Why understanding this comes in handy: Since sexual orientation is not a protected class (yet), the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment doesn't apply to matters of sexual orientation. Therefore, the argument that Louisiana's ban on gay marriage violates the 14th amendment is wrong. Also [QUOTE]"Defendants rejoin that the laws serve a central state interest of linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents. Of even more consequence, in this Court's judgment, defendants assert a legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus. This Court agrees." "Louisiana's laws and Constitution are directly related to achieving marriage's historically preeminent purpose of linking children to their biological parents. Louisiana's regime pays respect to the democratic process; to vigorous debate. To predictable controversy, of course. The fact that marriage has many differing, even perhaps unproved dimensions, does not render Louisiana's decision irrational. Nor does the opinion of a set ofsocial scientists (ardently disputed by many others, it should benoted) that other associative forms may be equally stable, or the view that such judgments vilify a group (even though one finds them in a majority of the states, but not in all states). Even the fact that the state's precepts work to one group's disadvantage does not mandate that they serve no rational basis. The Court is persuaded that a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years, and prevails in a majority of states today, is not universally irrational on the constitutional grid."[/QUOTE] This basically states that while the plantiffs concluded that the only reason for Louisiana to have these laws is due to hate, therefore making them illegal under federal law (states cannot implement laws for the purpose of animosity towards homosexuals), that's not the case. Louisiana's marriage laws are based on traditional purposes of marriage, and not out of hate or animosity towards homosexuals. Also, he agrees with the state that fundamental societal changes such as this one are better done via democratic means. That was his ruling, and honestly, I can't find a legal flaw in it. His ruling was within existing law. While I may disagree with it on a personal level, on a legal level he is 100% correct. However, this issue will go up to the supreme court where sexual orientation will hopefully become a protected class on a national level, making gay marriage legal in all states. But until then, he is technically correct....

[QUOTE=gufu;45883479]Holy shit. He fucking points out the most important part of marriage, while trying to make a point against it.[/QUOTE] I can't believe that Federal Judges use this same, tired and garbage argument. There is a HUGE difference between two consenting adults and an adult/child relationship.

Surprised it took this long to find one judge that was bigoted enough to ignore all legal precedent and make a ruling based on his own prejudices.

I hope he dies of ass cancer. Preferably twice.

I'm sure the Supreme Court will have some nice words to say when they overturn this later.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45886208]Surprised it took this long to find one judge that was bigoted enough to ignore all legal precedent and make a ruling based on his own prejudices.[/QUOTE] Please post the legal precedent that he ignored...... [QUOTE=draugur;45886237]I'm sure the Supreme Court will have some nice words to say when they overturn this later.[/QUOTE] I hope they do, but he is following the law as it stands right now.

Challenge it and bring it to the supreme court. Then petition for this man to be unseated for wasting the court's time because he knowingly ruled against people's constitutional right of the pursuit of happiness, equality and justice for all.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45886005] This basically states that while the plantiffs concluded that the only reason for Louisiana to have these laws is due to hate, therefore making them illegal under federal law (states cannot implement laws for the purpose of animosity towards homosexuals), that's not the case. Louisiana's marriage laws are based on traditional purposes of marriage, and not out of hate or animosity towards homosexuals. Also, he agrees with the state that fundamental societal changes such as this one are better done via democratic means. [/QUOTE] The traditional purpose of marriage was to bind two families together through a property contract. The father of the bride originally was LITERALLY giving his daughter away. It wasn't some figurative bullshit, he was transferring [I]property[/I]. If you want to play the tradition card, I have a whole bag of fucking crazy that comes along with traditional marriage. Everything from what honeymoons are for to why the groom is on a certain side to why the bride wears a veil. Bringing up tradition AT ALL when discussing marriage is fucking insane. Modern marriage is about love and, ultimately, has little in common with its fucked up ancestor. If the union isn't damaging to the pair or the people around them, then it should be permitted. No, this doesn't magically make sibling marriage okay. That is banned because of flipper babies. (Technically speaking I'd be fine with the marriage if both parties were legally obligated to be sterilized. Still gross, but none of my business provided nobody gets hurt.) They also lack absolutely any evidence to suggest that homosexual couples would be any worse at raising kids. Three seconds on google will tell you that there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that they are just as qualified as heterosexual couples. With those set aside, that just leaves hate. They made the laws because they hate.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45886316]Please post the legal precedent that he ignored...... I hope they do, but he is following the law as it stands right now.[/QUOTE] Why are you playing devil's advocate when the only purpose is to be an annoying pedant? The law can get fucked. It's wrong.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;45886406]Why are you playing devil's advocate when the only purpose is to be an annoying pedant? The law can get fucked. It's wrong.[/QUOTE] Just because you dislike the law, it doesn't mean it should be abandoned. However in this case the law was straight up in violation of federal restrictions. They have just put a lot of effort into their smoke and mirrors deal to keep you from realizing exactly how much bullshit they are actually spraying in order to keep you from realizing that their ONLY reason is because they hate homosexuality.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;45886406]Why are you playing devil's advocate when the only purpose is to be an annoying pedant? The law can get fucked. It's wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to be an "annoying pendant". I'm simply explaining to people why, by law, the judge's ruling makes perfect legal sense. The law is wrong, but the judge is not we the people, he is not a senator, he is in no position to change the law. He has to make his judgements in accordance with the law, no matter how right or wrong the law is. So my question to you is why is everybody bashing a judge who is only doing his job? I'm not playing devil's advocate. I'm trying to show people that their anger is being misplaced on the judge rather than on the law he has sworn to uphold. [QUOTE=GunFox;45886458]Just because you dislike the law, it doesn't mean it should be abandoned. However in this case the law was straight up in violation of federal restrictions. They have just put a lot of effort into their smoke and mirrors deal to keep you from realizing exactly how much bullshit they are actually spraying in order to keep you from realizing that their ONLY reason is because they hate homosexuality.[/QUOTE] The judge found that even though it had an adverse effect on homosexuals, the law's intent was not specifically designed to be bigoted towards homosexuals. I don't know what the arguments were to persuade him of this, but we'll see at the appeal....

this just in Federal courts can say anything they want about anything, the net-gain is that gay marrage is going to [I]have to be[/I] made legal in all 50 states i like how his oppinion could be used to enact any real law though, saying that even though its illegal to differentiate based on sexual orientation, if the state's voters approve of it then its law....i mean hell state's voters approved of jim crow and segragation and a bunch of other illegal stuff, but at the same time it does fit with the way marijuana rulings have been technically since its illegal to legalise it but states are doing that anyways [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45886528]I'm not trying to be an "annoying pendant". I'm simply explaining to people why, by law, the judge's ruling makes perfect legal sense. The law is wrong, but the judge is not we the people, he is not a senator, he is in no position to change the law. He has to make his judgements in accordance with the law, no matter how right or wrong the law is. [/quote] he actually is though, he was appointed by Regan and is a far-rightist judge who's track record shows it, partisanship doesn't stop at the judge's bench

[QUOTE=Sableye;45886624]he actually is though, he was appointed by Regan and is a far-rightist judge who's track record shows it, partisanship doesn't stop at the judge's bench[/QUOTE] You'd think Federal Judges are immune to the idiocy plagued by state and local level officials until you realize a president has to appoint them too. Stuff like the DEA, are examples of a personal policy that a specific administration wanted to have installed with very little possibility for overturning REALLY BADLY, so they deliberate take channels that will cement and solidify their policy long after they are dead. This judge appointment is an example of such abuse (desperation to have traditionalism live on, but it will not last forever).

[QUOTE=Sableye;45886624]he actually is though, he was appointed by Regan and is a far-rightist judge who's track record shows it, partisanship doesn't stop at the judge's bench[/QUOTE] He can interpret law, but no, he can not change law. Honestly, the only shot this has at being turned over is the angle GunFox was taking, but you have to prove it was based on hate. I think it's going to depend on how the majority of the supreme court views marriage from the government's perspective. If they view marriage as a privilege defined and granted by the states, then the bans will stay until sexual orientation is declared a protected class by law. If they view marriage as a right of all people, then expect the bans to be lifted. I would be pushing hard for sexual orientation to be declared a federally protected class. It's the quickest and surefire way to get gay marriage in all states. It also protects from all forms of discrimination as well. That's the approach I would take....

[QUOTE=gufu;45883479]Holy shit. He fucking points out the most important part of marriage, while trying to make a point against it.[/QUOTE] wait wait wait stop the fucking presses [quote] Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female?[B] All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs,"[/B][/quote] you mean to tell me someone might not only want gay marriage, but also to get married to a transperson??? or have a polygamous relationship??! jesus CHRIST fuck this sad excuse for a judge.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45886240]So did he take money for his ruling? Or favors? Or gain anything from the ruling? No? Ok then, he's not corrupt. He was acting within the law, as specifically laid out by the state and federal government. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them "corrupt", hell I disagree with the ruling but you don't see me sitting here saying "ERMAGERD CORRUPT FACIST PIG DOG JUDGE". [editline]3rd September 2014[/editline] Wow.. for real?[/QUOTE] He certainly had personal gain for it. His personal beliefs clouded what the nation as a whole felt and since he had power to do something about it he did under self satisfaction