Posted on 09/04/2014 3:33:57 AM PDT by matthewrobertolson
Here are six excerpts from Judge Martin L. C. Feldman's landmark ruling against same-sex civil marriage in Robicheaux, et al. v. Caldwell.
"The Court first takes up the most hefty constitutional issue: Equal Protection. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution commands that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' ... 'The Equal Protection Clause...essentially directs that all persons similarly situated be treated alike.' [Stoneburner v. Sec'y of the Army] However, 'if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class,' the Supreme Court has held, 'the legislative classification [will survive] so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.' [Romer v. Evans] When conducting rational basis review, the Supreme Court has instructed that 'we will not overturn such [government action] unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the [government's] actions were irrational.' [Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents] 'In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale seems tenuous.' [Romer] If, however, heightened scrutiny, the most unforgiving, is warranted, then a law must be 'necessary to the accomplishment' of 'a compelling governmental interest.' [Palmore v. Sidoti]" [p. 6-7]
"No authority dictates, and plaintiffs do not contend, that same-sex marriage is anchored to history or tradition. The concept of same-sex marriage is 'a new perspective, a new insight,' nonexistent and even inconceivable until very recently. [United States v. Windsor] Many states have democratically chosen to recognize same-sex marriage. But until recent years, it had no place at all in this nation's history and tradition. Public attitude might be becoming more diverse, but any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental. [Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales] There is simply no fundamental right, historically or traditionally, to same-sex marriage." [p. 21-22]
"Although plaintiffs would fashion a modern constitutional construct and place side by side this case to Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), in which the Supreme Court held that Texas' antisodomy statute violated substantive due process, the Court in Lawrence specifically found that the Texas law furthered no legitimate state interest sufficient to justify its intrusion on the right to privacy. [Id. at 578.] 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, as specifically underscored by Justice Kennedy in Windsor." [p. 23]
"This Court has arduously studied the volley of nationally orchestrated court rulings against states whose voters chose in free and open elections, whose legislatures, after a robust, even fractious debate and exchange of competing, vigorously differing views, listened to their citizens regarding the harshly divisive and passionate issue on same-sex marriage. The federal court decisions thus far exemplify a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos. Courts that, in the words of Justice Scalia in a different context...appear to have assumed the mantle of a legislative body." [p. 26]
"Perhaps in a new established point of view, marriage will be reduced to contract law, and, by contract, anyone will be able to claim marriage. Perhaps that is the next frontier, the next phase of some 'evolving understanding of equality,' where what is marriage will be explored. ... But that is an incomplete answer to today's social issue. When a federal court is obliged to confront a constitutional struggle over what is marriage, a singularly pivotal issue, the consequence of outcomes, intended or otherwise, seems an equally compelling part of the equation. It seems unjust to ignore. And so, inconvenient questions persist. For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs." [p. 28]
"This case shares striking similarities with [Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action]. Just as in Schuette, this case involves '[d]eliberative debate on sensitive issues [that] all too often may shade into rancor.' [Id.] And so just like the Supreme Court very recently held, this Court agrees 'that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters' reach. Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.'" [footnote, on p. 30-31]
—
Follow me and Catholic Analysis on Twitter, Like Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Catholic Analysis and Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and Subscribe to me or Catholic Analysis on YouTube.
—
About time a judge actually looked more closely into this issue.
Homosexuals have the very same rights as us. They can marry the opposite sex as we can, and they can not marry the opposite sex as like us.
It si also not a constitutional right to marry.
I am fed up with this equal protection crap when infact they have the very same rights as us
This Judge, like many others, is misreading the equal protection clause. How can someone who has years of training, and obvious native intelligence, make such a simple error? It has always amazed me.
It's as if the government were handing out ice cream to every citizen, and you were to scream "unfair treatment" because you don't like ice cream and would prefer chocolate cake.
For later
good analogy
These passages are a testament to jurist genius. I find it a wonder to behold. Clear articulate legal discourse using the power of knowledge, language and critical thinking is not just honoring the human mind but is essential to the survival of the Rule of Law that is the cornerstone of our Republic.
Supreme Court has upheld this “definition” for awhile. “Brutus” was correct in his assessment of the court “running wild” under this Constitution.
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.