Federal judge upholds La. same-sex marriage ban

Townhall ^ | Sep 03, 2014 | AP

[xzins]

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge has upheld Louisiana's ban on same-sex marriages, as well as the state's refusal to recognize gay marriages legally performed in other states.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman's ruling Wednesday ...said gay marriage supporters failed to prove that the ban violates equal protection or due process provisions of the Constitution.

Feldman agreed ...that states have the right to define marriage.

[dinoparty]

Sounds like good news, but how is it distinguished in substance from the USSC’s holding when it threw out DOMA?

[dinoparty]

Oh, I get it. The DOMA case said DOMA can’t be used to invalidate state law legalizing same sex marriage. This case says that states have the right to outlaw same sex marriage.

[skams19]

If you are a corporate president or vice president, probably best if you use an assumed name in posting support for this ruling.

[dadfly]

finally. we won one. praise God!

[clintonh8r]

I'm proud that a fellow Tulane alum has made this ruling. It's almost enough to offset the shame that James Carvile and Melissa Harris-Perry have brought upon my beloved alma mater.

[Marathoner]

Reagan also nominate O’Connor and Kennedy, neither was a reliable conservative vote.

Can't argue with that, but at least they were a little better than Kagan or the wise Latina.

Also, he does get extra credit for Scalia.

[SeekAndFind]

One Federal judge upholds gay marriage ban, another one decides it is unconstitutional.

Is it possible to have a union where one set of laws regarding marriage is recognized in some states but not others?

[xzins]

How about each state gets to decide for itself

[Mouton]

This guy needs a monument named in his honor right now before it gets over turned.

[Mouton]

Reagan appointee

[xzins]

I thought scotus actually said no more than that it injures a homosexual couple to deny them benefits of marriage in one state if they are considered married in another. Am I misunderstanding what was decided about DOMA?

[LaybackLenny]

...U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman...

I always did like the guy.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

A Reagan appointee. Formerly Army JAG.

[JSDude1]

YEA!..

[JSDude1]

YEP, and notice that his nomination HAD to be APPROVED BY U.S. SENATE- Kind of makes you think that the people that want to Pooh, pooh Republicans taking the Senate because of a few bad RINOS are incredibly short-sighted or temporarily insane!!

[longtermmemmory]

the problem is in the low end state court judges.

[Friendofgeorge]

Now there`s a judge that wants to go to heaven...Praise The Lord!

[Cheerio]

UNBELEIVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Amendment10]

Patriots need to know why the first 20+ federal judges wrongly decided that state gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. I don't know if these judges were indoctrinated with the wrong ideas is law school, or if they are pro-gay activists, but below are excerpts from official sources which show why using the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause to declare state marriage bans unconstitutional don't hold water.

Not only did John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the Equal Protections Clause is found, clarify in the congressional record that 14A applies only express protections amended to the Constitution by the states to the states, but the Supreme Court had essentially clarified the same thing about three years after Bingham's clarification.

• “Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

• “3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphases added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay "righs," 14A has no constitutionally enumerated rights to apply to the states to protect gay agenda issues. So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against gay issues, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to believe about the Supreme Court deciding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect.

DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Note that DOMA's Section 2 is reasonably based on the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, Clause 1 of Article IV, which gives Congress the power to decide the effect of one state's records in the other states.

[1010RD]

Yep, but how about we start with capturing the Senate and strengthening our hold on the House in 2014?