Posted on 10/22/2014 7:45:38 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
Puerto Ricos 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 ...
FINALLY! NOW WAIT FOR THE GAY LOBBY TO BOYCOTT PR....AND WATCH TOURISM SOAR.
I think that it’s obvious that judges are political positions. The whole idea of a neutral judiciary was a pipe dream after the initial Founders had gone their way....maybe before.
Today, however, they clearly are political.
Our state of Ohio seems to run just fine with elected judges all the way to the state supreme court.. We need the same at the federal level.
I would organize their elections just as with Senators, and have 3 up for vote every 2 years. As with the president, I’d limit them to 2 terms of 4 years each.
The district and appeals courts would be 4 year terms as well with a limit of 2 terms. District courts would be per state and have rulings only valid within their own state, so it wouldn’t matter if New York had more district courts than did South Dakota. Their rulings would affect only New York.
The appeals courts would have geographic regions based on statistical/cluster population lines, and I’d increase their number to twelve but have 7 justices per appeals court.
Why does Puerto Rico get to choose but other states can’t?
Oh...you say because they’re “latino”? And that they have rights? And since I’m a gauchupino I don’t get to have the same say as they do?
Tell that ....Kennedy that. Most judges are leaping on his half ass opinion. to justify their refusal to reject the rationale of two centuries of family law.
The “Courts” only approved it in Puerto Rico because they are MINORITIES, and so they have more rights than regular Americans.
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.