"It is a sad day in America when five lawyers beholden to none and appointed for life can rob the people of their democratic process, forcing so-called civil liberties regarding who can marry on all Americans when the issue was decided by the states as solemn expressions of the will of the people. I wholeheartedly disagree and find that, rather than a triumph of constitutionalism, the opinion of these five lawyers is an utter travesty as is my constrained adherence to the 'law of the land' enacted not by the will of American people but by five judicial activists."UPDATE 3/16/16: 'Gay Marriage' Battle NOT Over in Some States
-- Justice Jeannette Theriol Knoll, Louisiana Supreme Court
UPDATE 7/23/15: County Clerk Sues for 'Christian Rights,' Refuses 'Gay Marriage'
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Alabama Supreme Court Says Ignore Federal Court re: 'Gay Marriage'
The Gay 'Untied' States of America
Activist Judges Say Scalia Right on 'Gay Marriage'
Business, Pro Sports, GOP Urge Supreme Court to Go Gay
U.S. Catholic Bishops vs. Supreme Court Gay Agenda
UPDATE 7/28/15: Gay Agenda Destroys Everything it Contacts
-- From "Louisiana Justices Rebuke High Court on Gay Marriage" by Sabrina Canfield, Courthouse News Service, 7/8/15
Knoll went on to decry "the horrific impact" the U.S. Supreme Court justices "made on the democratic rights of the American people to define marriage and the rights stemming by operation of law therefrom."
"The five unelected judges' declaration that the right to marry whomever one chooses is a fundamental right is a mockery of those rights explicitly enumerated in those Bill of Rights," she continued. "Simply stated, it is a legal fiction imposed upon the entirety of this nation because these five people think it should be."
In their opinions, the Louisiana justices concurred that a same sex couple's union has to be recognized by the state and that one member of a female couple could potentially legally be recognized as a parent to her partner's biological son, but the justices were firm that they only concurred because they had to.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Louisiana Supreme Court justices denounce same-sex marriage ruling, calling it an 'insult,' 'utter travesty' with 'horrific impact'" by Lanie Lee Cook and Maya Lau, The New Orleans Advocate 7/9/15
Four justices weighed in on their own, issuing individual takes on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared same-sex marriages legal across the U.S.
Justice John Weimer emphasized that Louisiana’s constitutional amendment [defining one-man-one-woman marriage] was approved with 77.78 percent of the vote in 2004.
“The apparent and rapid shift in public sentiment on the issue before us has been profound. However, the role of the judiciary is not to weigh shifting public sentiment at any given moment, but to be steadfast in following the law duly enacted by the people and/or their representatives,” he wrote.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Louisiana justice cites 'horrific impact' of Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling" by Jonah Hicap, Christian Today 7/9/15
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Jefferson Hughes III said "marriage is not only for the parties."
"Its purpose is to provide children with a safe and stable environment in which to grow. Its definition cannot be changed by legalisms," he wrote as he took aim at the US Supreme Court ruling.
Hughes expressed concerned about same-sex couples adopting children.
"The most troubling prospect of same sex marriage is the adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Louisiana Supremes: 'Marriage' ruling 'complete insult'" by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily 7/8/15
“Does the 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court automatically legalize this type of adoption? While the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy leaves it to the various courts and agencies to hash out these issues, I do not concede the reinterpretation of every statute premised upon traditional marriage,” [Hughes] warned.
“Our U.S. Constitution envisions change through democracy and reserves to the states and the people all powers not delegated to the federal government. … Unilaterally, these five lawyers took for themselves a question the Constitution expressly leaves to the people and about which the people have been in open debate – the true democratic process,” wrote Louisiana Justice Jeannette Knoll.
“This is not a constitutionally mandated decision, but a super-legislative imposition of the majority’s will over the solemn expression of the people evidenced in their state constitutional definitions of marriage.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Polygamy License Legitimacy Considered in Montana
Almost No Americans Want a 'Homosexual Marriage'
Religious Liberty in Homosexualists' Crosshairs
Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Christian Wedding Chapel
ACLU Sues Christians for Refusing 'Gay Marriage'
