'Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability
to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law,' wrote Perez-Gimenez
Posted on 10/23/2014 7:30:09 AM PDT by wagglebee
'Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability
to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law,' wrote Perez-Gimenez
In a rare court victory for supporters of true marriage, a U.S. District Judge this week upheld the legality of Puerto Rico’s marriage protection law, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
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 ruling striking down key portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“Because no right to same-gender marriage emanates from the Constitution, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should not be compelled to recognize such unions,” Perez-Gimenez wrote.
“Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law,” wrote Perez-Gimenez. “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,” added the judge. “The question now is whether judicial ‘wisdom’ may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.”
Lambda Legal staff attorney Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, who represented the gay plaintiffs in the case, told the Washington Blade that Tuesday’s ruling “flies in the face of the blizzard of rulings of the last year … and the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the rulings striking down five bans similar to Puerto Rico’s.”
Added Gonzalez-Pagan, “One struggles to understand how this judge came to a different conclusion.”
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.
“A clear majority of courts have struck down statutes that affirm opposite-gender marriage only,” Perez-Gimenez wrote. “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?”
The Supreme Court’s decision regarding DOMA, “does not – cannot – change things,” wrote Perez-Gimenez. “[The Supreme Court] struck down Section 3 of DOMA which imposed a federal definition of marriage, as an impermissible federal intrusion on state power. [The court’s] opinion did not create a fundamental right to same-gender marriage nor did it establish that state opposite-gender marriage regulations are amendable to federal constitutional challenges. If anything, [the decision] stands for the opposite proposition: it reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage.”
“It takes inexplicable contortions of the mind or perhaps even willful ignorance … to interpret [the Supreme Court’s] endorsement of the state control of marriage as eliminating the state control of marriage,” Perez-Gimenez added.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, praised the judge for his ruling, calling him, “a model of judicial restraint.”
Lamenting an “epidemic of federal judges legislating from the bench on the issue of marriage,” Perkins said, “it is time for other courts to follow his example, and the Supreme Court shouldn't allow activist lower courts to redefine states' marriage laws.”
"Judge Pérez-Giménez not only rejected the constitutional arguments for redefining marriage, but succinctly made the case for natural marriage,” Perkins said. “He is correct in saying that this is among the 'principles of logic and law that cannot be forgotten.'”
"In my recent Fox News Sunday debate with [pro-same-sex “marriage”] attorney Ted Olson, I challenged him to articulate what boundaries may be placed if 'love' is the only criteria for marriage. He refused to do so,” added Perkins. “Judge Pérez-Giménez offered the same challenge … .”
Concluded Perkins, “Every judge considering a marriage case-and every public official charged with administering or enforcing his or her state's laws on marriage-should read and take guidance from this ruling.”
“Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries,” added the judge.
Finally, a judge who actually gets it!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Wow! A real HONEST judge. They’re really rare these days. Most judges work for the DNC.
I read about this the other day. He based his ruling on a Supreme Court ruling that defended marriage and said that there was no such thing as same sex marriage.
I’ve been spreading the word about this.
Praise be to this judge! He’s a beacon of light in a sea of judicial darkness.
To bad Puerto Rico is not a state, it is a commonwealth of the US. This will fly in the face of all the other states of the US Union - How can a judge in a commonwealth Territory rule that the US Constitution and the Supreme Court has abridged the decency of marriage - in that there is no such issue as same sex marriage. A man marries a woman that is final - it is traditional understanding. How can a man marry a man and a woman marry a woman - it is not natural to do so, nor is it God’s plan of human existence. The law of nature must prevail to a certain extant - male and female species exist for procreation. same sex marriage is not possible. Unless mankind is like an Amoeba and can propogate itself, it is a freak of nature for man and man, womamn and woman. So basically even the US Supreme Court is in violation of the Constitution
Puerto Rico Ping! Please Freepmail me if you want on or off the list.
The only sane place in the U.S. is the place that isn’t a state.
And to think how many so-called conservative elected officials have just waved the white flag on this.
Many people have waved the white flag because we live in a politically correct world now.
And they are afraid of being called homophobic.
That’s where we are at. Sadly this is the state of our union.
Nice to find a judge with intestinal fortitude.
““Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries,” added the judge.”
Exactly, and those principles have been around far longer than the 14th Amendment.
He gave us some great secular language to use in arguments against queering the meaning of marriage and family. Although quoting the Bible means everything to me as a Christian, we will start winning when we engage in secular language to shoot down the lie of “equality.” They don’t have the “right” to dismantle society for their sexual pleasures and habits.
Nor do they have the need to.
This has NEVER been about marriage rights for homosexuals. Granted there are some homosexuals who want to be married, but the left doesn't actually care about them as anything more than a tool to advance an agenda.
The population control movement began as a way to limit the reproduction of "undesirable" races and classes of people. But eventually the left realized that it could also be used to advance the notion of sex without consequences.
The whole "Free Love" movement wasn't about equality, it was about destroying the traditional family. Today we live in a society where about half of all babies are born out of wedlock, few people even question unmarried people living together. Over half of marriages end in divorce, so even those children who are born to married parents will oftentimes not be raised in a traditional family.
From the mid-1960s until about ten or fifteen years ago, the left said NOTHING about marriage as a desirable institution, their entire agenda was based upon marriage being UNNECESSARY and even demeaning to women. However, they couldn't get people to stop getting married, they hit a roadblock and couldn't get Christians to stop talking about the sanctity of marriage. So, they adopted the homosexual movement and convinced homosexuals (a group that largely bases relationship on the sexual act itself rather than any sort of commitment) to demand marriage "rights." The left IS NOT doing this because they care about homosexuals (they don't care about them any more than they care about the poor, minorities, unions, etc., they are simply another leftist voting block), the left is doing this to devalue and ultimately destroy the institution of marriage for the rest of us.
BTTT!
Refreshing.
A moral and principled man with common sense and true understanding following the wisdom and truth of the Constitution and we had to wait for a judge governing Puerto Rico to finally make the correct ruling.
Well stated.
Still trolling, eh, trumandogz? Oh well, you’re subtle enough that one can see how you fly under the radar, unlike re_nortex, who’s obvious trolling should have been noted ages ago. Is life that boring for you guys that you have to play this game? Carry on, if it makes you happy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.