Thursday, October 23, 2014

'Gay Marriage' Ruled Out by Jimmy Carter's Judge

Setting up a path to the Supreme Court concerning same-sex "marriage," United States District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez, who was appointed by President Carter in 1979, ruled that voters of each state (a.k.a. We the People) have the right to define marriage because past U.S. Supreme Court rulings have confirmed this constitutional right.

UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court

For background, read Federal Judge Cites Supreme Court Rulings to Support Louisiana Marriage Amendment

And also read about other judges (including appellate) who have ruled in favor of natural marriage saying that there is NO constitutional protection for "gay marriage," but also read how activist judges across America are forbidding voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

In addition, read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court

-- From "Puerto Rico federal court dismisses same-sex marriage lawsuit" by Dale Carpenter, Washington Post 10/21/14

[The judge] dismissed a challenge to Puerto Rico’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. He concluded the outcome was controlled by the Supreme Court’s summary rejection of same-sex marriage claims in Baker v. Nelson in 1972 . . .

The decision does two important things, in addition to denying marriage to same-sex couples in Puerto Rico. First, it puts the First Circuit back in play in the national litigation, although every state in the [New England] circuit already recognizes same-sex marriage. A panel of that court suggested that Baker did indeed bar same-sex marriage constitutional claims in its decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2012. . . .

Second, the issue of Baker‘s effect is actively being considered in other circuits. Most immediately, the Sixth Circuit is already considering a case that turns in part on whether Baker controls. In the Eighth Circuit, a motion to dismiss a same-sex marriage challenge was argued in a South Dakota district court last Friday. (The challenge was brought by my former student Joshua Newville.) And the Fifth Circuit will soon schedule argument in Texas’s appeal from a district court decision striking down that state’s limitation on marriage.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Appeal Sought in Puerto Rico Gay Marriage Case" by Danica Coto, Associated Press 10/22/14

A federal court judge has rejected an attempt to end a ban on same-sex marriages in Puerto Rico, saying political order itself depends on traditional marriage and deriding the logic of courts that have overturned such bans. The five gay couples who filed the suit will appeal, their attorney said Wednesday.

The couples had challenged the constitutionality of several local laws, including a 1902 code that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Perez-Gimenez questioned the actions of more than two dozen judges on the U.S. mainland who have struck down state same-sex marriage bans following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as U.S. vs. Windsor. That ruling struck down a federal provision that denied several tax, health and veterans benefits to legally married gay couples, though it did not declare gay marriage legal nationwide.

Perez-Gimenez wondered in his ruling whether laws prohibiting polygamy and incestuous relations will be questioned now, saying that traditional marriage is essential to society itself.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Democrat-appointed judge rules against Puerto Rico marriage equality" by Gerald Farinas, Chicago Phoenix 10/21/14

The President Jimmy Carter-appointed judge argued that it was not his place to legislate social policy from the bench.

The Puerto Rico legislature passed a definition of marriage that called it “a civil contract whereby a man and a woman mutually agree to become husband and wife.” It was signed into law in 1999.

Lambda Legal filed the case—now probably destined for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It represents LGBT advocacy group Puerto Rico Para Todos and five couples—two seeking to marry in the commonwealth, three seeking to have their U.S. mainland marriages recognized by the commonwealth.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Puerto Rico ban on same-sex marriage upheld" by Lyle Denniston, Reporter, Supreme Court of the United States Blog 10/21/14

Relying mainly on two legal points that federal courts have repeatedly rejected over the past sixteen months, a federal trial judge in San Juan ruled Tuesday that Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage survives constitutional challenge. . . .

Judge Perez-Gimenez focused the first part of his constitutional analysis on the Supreme Court’s summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson forty-two years ago.  In that case, the Court dismissed a gay couple’s appeal seeking a right to marry because, it said, the case did not raise “a substantial federal question.”  That left intact a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in favor of that state’s ban on same-sex unions.

The San Juan jurist said the Supreme Court has never overruled that decision, so it is still binding on lower federal courts . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "In passionate ruling, federal judge upholds Puerto Rico’s marriage protection law" by Kirsten Andersen, 10/22/14

In his 21-page decision, Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez passionately defended true marriage and delivered a scathing rebuke to his colleagues across the nation who have overwhelmingly ruled to overturn state bans on same-sex “marriage” in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2013 [United States v. Windsor] ruling striking down key portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

In his ruling, Judge Perez-Gimenez acknowledged he is in the minority of judges willing to defend true marriage.  But he had harsh words for the activist courts that have now redefined marriage to include same-sex couples in 32 states.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From: United States District Court - District Of Puerto Rico - Case 3:14-cv-01253-PG Document 57 Filed 10/21/14

Shortly after Puerto Rico became an unincorporated insular territory of the United States . . . was the enactment of the Civil Code of 1902, which included Article 129:
Marriage is a civil institution that emanates from a civil contract by virtue of which a man and a woman are mutually obligated to be husband and wife, and to fulfill for one another all the duties that the law imposes. It will be valid only when it is celebrated and solemnized in accordance with such provisions of law and may only be dissolved before the death of any of the spouses in those instances expressly provided for in this Code.
. . . A revised Code was approved in 1930 that incorporated the 1902 code’s definition of marriage . . . Two amendments were later added but the Code’s original definition of marriage as between “a man and a woman” did not change. This long-standing definition, stretching across two distinct legal traditions, rules out animus as the primary motivation behind Puerto Rico’s marriage laws.

From the time Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States its marriage laws have had the same consistent policy . . . marriage is between one man and one woman. For that reason, Puerto Rico’s marriage policy is neither unclear nor unsettled.

. . . The plaintiffs have brought this challenge alleging a violation of the federal constitution, so the first place to begin is with the text of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution, however, does not directly guarantee a right to same-gender marriage, for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”

. . . the First Circuit has spared us from the misapprehension that has plagued our sister courts. The First Circuit expressly acknowledged – a mere two years ago – that [the Supreme Court decision of] Baker remains binding precedent “unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent.” . . . According to the First Circuit, Baker prevents the adoption of arguments that “presume or rest on a constitution al right to same-sex marriage.” Even creating “a new suspect classification for same-sex relationships” would “imply[ ] an overruling of Baker,” – relief that the First Circuit acknowledged is beyond a lower court’s power to grant. This Court agrees, and even if this Court disagreed, the First Circuit’s decision would tie this Court’s hands no less surely than Baker ties the First Circuit’s hands.

. . . The [2013 Supreme Court] Windsor opinion did not create a fundamental right to same-gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amenable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, Windsor stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question. . . . Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, Windsor does not overturn Baker; rather, Windsor and Baker work in tandem to emphasize the States’ “historic and essential authority to define the marital relation” free from “federal intrusion.” . . . It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance – this Court does not venture an answer here – to interpret Windsor’s endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage.

. . . Baker, which necessarily decided that a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, remains good law. Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions. Instead, Puerto Rico, acting through its legislature, remains free to shape its own marriage policy. In a system of limited constitutional self-government such as ours, this is the prudent outcome. The people and their elected representatives should debate the wisdom of redefining marriage. Judges should not.


That this Court reaches its decision by embracing precedent may prove disappointing. But the role of precedent in our system of adjudication is not simply a matter of binding all succeeding generations to the decision that is first in time. Instead, stare decisis embodies continuity, certainly, but also limitation: there are some principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.

Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.

Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial “wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only. In their ingenuity and imagination they have constructed a seemingly comprehensive legal structure for this new form of marriage. And yet what is lacking and unaccounted for remains: are laws barring polygamy, or, say the marriage of fathers and daughters, now of doubtful validity? Is “minimal marriage”, where “individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person, reciprocally or asymmetrically, themselves determining the sex and number of parties” the blueprint for their design? . . . It would seem so, if we follow the plaintiffs’ logic, that the fundamental right to marriage is based on “the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice.”

Of course, it is all too easy to dismiss such concerns as absurd or of a kind with the cruel discrimination and ridicule that has been shown toward people attracted to members of their own sex. But the truth concealed in these concerns goes to the heart of our system of limited, consent-based government: those seeking sweeping change must render reasons justifying the change and articulate the principles that they claim will limit this newly fashioned right.

For now, one basic principle remains: the people, acting through their elected representatives, may legitimately regulate marriage by law. This principle is impeded, not advanced, by court decrees based on the proposition that the public cannot have the requisite repose to discuss certain issues. It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds . . . Freedom embraces the right, indeed the duty, to engage in a rational, civic discourse in order to determine how best to form a consensus to shape the destiny of the Nation and its people.

To read the entire court ruling above, CLICK HERE.

Also read 'Gay Marriage' Battle Seeks Supreme (Court) Savior