Posted on 10/22/2014 7:45:38 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage remains in place after a federal judge dismissed a challenge to the ban Tuesday, saying the U.S. Supreme Court established a precedent four decades ago.
U.S. District Judge Juan M. Pérez-Giménez said in his decision that by dismissing an appeal in Baker vs. Nelson, a 1971 case in which two men sought to marry in Minnesota, the Supreme Court bound all lower courts to assume bans on same-sex marriage do not violate the Constitution. The high court could choose to overrule itself but has not, he said.
Document Puerto Rico same-sex marriage decision Puerto Rico same-sex marriage decision
Pérez-Giménez went on to say that legalizing same-sex marriage would open the door to challenges that could legalize polygamous and incestuous marriages. “Ultimately,” he wrote, “the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.”
He dismissed the challenge with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I think that Baker v. Nelson was decided by the MN Supreme Court in 1971, but that the SCOTUS cert denial for lack of a federal question that serves as precedent in federal courts nationwide was from 1972.
When presidents make appointments to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, they usually consult with the highest-ranking Puerto Rico public officials from their same party. In 1979, both Governor Carlos Romero-Barceló and Resident Commissioner Baltasar Corrada were Democrats, and likely one or both of them recommended Judge Pérez-Giménez to President Carter. Corrada was only pretending to be a Democrat so as to serve in the majority in Congress (he switched to the GOP as mayor of San Juan in the 1980s and presided over the PR delegation to the 1988 Republican National Convention, and Romero-Barceló cared more about the judge being pro-statehood than a liberal, so a generally conservative jurist like Pérez-Giménez slipped through.
Ahhh.. I thought something was hinky about that little detail. Now it makes a lot more sense (thanks!)
“Often, The Greatest Minds Lie Hidden”
Or, are removed out of the way.
Then give back NC’s right to ban state-supported sodomy.
The judge is citing a case from 1971?
That’s before the current political correctness agendas, and the current victories by the left that have the attacking everything in the constitution and the amendments to the constitution.
With the current sentiments in liberal land, that 1971 decision will be deemed out of step with what liberal want to call the modern age. And the republicans will go along with the liberal sentiment, for lack of will to hold to principles.
Carter appointment.
Jimmy will be calling the dimwhits in Sodom on the Potomac and demand impeachment and say the guy lied to him in interviews.
It can still be appealed.
Wonderful argumentation but I fear this is too little, too late.
It’s nice for Puerto Rico but not the remaining 57 (right Professor Obama?) states that will languish under the boot of leftist buggery.
That may sound a bit bitter now that I read it again. I’m sorry I guess I’m a little jealous of Puerto Rico. Maybe I should move there.
Puerto Rico is in the First Circuit. AFAIK they have not ruled on a traditional marriage case. However, it does not look good since the First Circus ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional.
If we get at least one circuit siding with traditional marriage, this may force the Supremes to rule on it and smoke out that b*stard Roberts. Kennedy is eager to rule against traditional marriage but I am afraid that Roberts is going Souter on us. I hope not but we may as well know now.
So these activist judges be they Obama’s, or just Leftist judges pimping the Leftist agenda need to be removed from office for violating the precedent set by the SCOTUS in 1971. Is that correct?
This judge is an answer to prayer.
. “Ultimately,” he wrote, “the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage.”
astonishing common sense.
They should be condemned and shamed in their own neighborhoods because
it effects everybody equally, Constitutionally. Posters would be a good start.
A constitutional amendment that would make federal judges at all level liable for re-election every two years by the people within their districts would help too. Make them accountable. Don’t let them turn into little gods who sit on a bench untouchable.
Of course, it’ll never happen, but...
My thoughts also Fast track. His future - if he has one now asa judge - may be interesting.
Hmm...Some daylight, finally.
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.