Thursday, September 04, 2014

'Gay Marriage' vs. Natural Family/Parenting: Judge

Federal District Court (Louisiana) Judge Martin L. C. Feldman ruled yesterday that same-sex marriage is simply not the norm in America and that a state government that is by the people and for the people gives the power to define marriage to the people -- not judges!  Feldman wrote, "Democracy does not presume that some subjects are too divisive or too profound for public debate."
"This Court is persuaded that Louisiana has 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."
-- Judge Martin L. C. Feldman
UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court

For background, read about other judges (including appellate) who have ruled in favor of natural marriage saying that there is NO constitutional protection for "gay marriage," and 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 "Federal Judge, Bucking Trend, Affirms Ban on Same-Sex Marriages in Louisiana" by Campbell Robertson, New York Times 9/3/14

The case, Robicheaux v. Caldwell, was brought by the Forum for Equality, a Louisiana-based gay rights group, and seven same-sex couples either seeking to be married here or seeking to have valid marriages from other states legally recognized in Louisiana.

Judge Feldman, who was nominated to the federal bench in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan, acknowledged that he was bucking the trend of court rulings. But he said there were too many unresolved questions about such a “fundamental social change” for the courts to supplant the popular will.

“Must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece?” he wrote. “Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child?”

“This court is powerless to be indifferent to the unknown and possibly imprudent consequences of such a decision,” Judge Feldman wrote. “A decision for which there remains the arena of democratic debate.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal judge upholds La. same-sex marriage ban" by Kevin McGill, Shreveport Times 9/3/14

In 2004, 78 percent of Louisiana voters approved an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

Feldman said gay marriage supporters failed to prove that ban violates equal protection or due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution. He also rejected an argument that the ban violated the First Amendment by effectively forcing legally married gay couples to state that they are single on Louisiana income tax returns.

Feldman sided with the state, which had argued that the nation's high court, in the Defense of Marriage Act decision, recognized the rights of state voters and legislatures to define marriage.

He also said that neither the Supreme Court, nor the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, have defined gay people as a protected class in discrimination cases.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "String of gay marriage victories broken in Louisiana" by Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 9/3/14

Same-sex marriage was "nonexistent and even inconceivable until very recently," Feldman said in his 32-page ruling. For that reason, he said, it is not a fundamental right that states must uphold despite constitutional or legislative bans.

"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," Feldman said.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Federal judge in Louisiana rules state has right to ban same-sex marriages" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post 9/3/14

“It would no doubt be celebrated to be in the company of the near-unanimity of the many other federal courts that have spoken to this pressing issue, if this court were confident in the belief that those cases provide a correct guide,” Feldman wrote. “Clearly, many other courts will have an opportunity to take up the issue of same-sex marriage; courts of appeals and, at some point, the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision of this court is but one studied decision among many.”

Both the winning and losing sides in those appellate cases have asked the Supreme Court to rule definitively on whether the U.S. Constitution extends the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples. The justices could make a decision on whether to accept the cases as early as this month.

And he said that while marriage is a fundamental right, it has not traditionally been seen as a right extended to same-sex couples. Legislatures might be free to do that, he said, but not judges.

Feldman said he had “arduously studied” the rulings by other courts and concluded that they “thus far exemplify a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos.” He said the courts “appear to have assumed the mantle of a legislative body.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "A Louisiana Judge Takes Aim at Gay Marriage—and Justice Kennedy" by Garrett Epps, The Atlantic 9/3/14

. . . Feldman’s opinion represents a fundamental challenge, couched in terms of recent Supreme Court precedent, to the claim that United States v. Windsor requires states to allow same-sex marriage. . . .

In his dissent in Windsor, [U.S. Supreme Court] Chief Justice John Roberts extended an invitation to lower courts to read that case as an ode to state power rather than to marriage equality. In Robicheaux v. Caldwell, Feldman for the first time makes Roberts’s words the basis of a decision a claim for marriage equality. Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Justice Antonin Scalia’s more prominent dissent, which angrily prophesied victory for same-sex marriage when it comes before the Court again.

In discussing the political dialogue over marriage, Feldman makes his most direct appeal to the High Court of Kennedy. He notes that Kennedy, in a decision earlier this year, wrote an opinion upholding a Michigan voter initiative in which a majority of voters cast ballots to outlaw race-based affirmative action. Feldman applies the rationale of that opinion, called BAMN v. Schuette, to voter initiatives that bar same-sex marriage . . .

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Louisiana same-sex marriage ban survives challenge" by Lyle Denniston, Reporter, Supreme Court of the United States Blog 9/3/14

“This court,” Judge Feldman wrote, “finds it difficult to minimize, indeed, ignore, the high court’s powerful reminder in Windsor:  ’The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’” Other parts of  Windsor quotations cited by the judge include these:  ”‘The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the [p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.  . . .  The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.”

He rejected a “heightened scrutiny” test for same-sex marriage laws by concluding that both the Supreme Court and the court of appeals in his region — the Fifth Circuit — had yet to recognize sexual orientation as a class deserving constitutional protection against discrimination, although they have had opportunities to do so.  He added that he was declining to “fashion a new suspect class” for purposes of constitutional analysis of claims of discrimination.

Moving on from the equal protection challenge to the claim that the ban violates constitutional promises of due process, Judge Feldman concluded that same-sex couples were seeking a new constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex, rather than a right to share equally in marriage itself.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.