• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak

I didn't think you were against gays--which is it Navy?.

We already have stats from schools showing that kids from a 2-parent gay couple are more functional than
many subcategories of heterosexual couples.

I hope you live long enough to see a decade's worth of quantifiable data, as we now have on mixed-race couples .
Navy Pride said:
Good for La.

Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak
Click to expand...
 
I have literally no doubt at all in my mind that this ruling won't stand. There was bound to be such a ruling eventually, and it doesn't surprise me at all that it came from a confederate state. Perhaps we'll need a national ruling after all. Either way, this ruling hinges on protected classes, which is a pretty shoddy argument. It relies on the idea that one must be a protected class in order to have equal rights. Again, there is no way that such a poorly supported decision can stand.
 
Paschendale said:
I have literally no doubt at all in my mind that this ruling won't stand. There was bound to be such a ruling eventually, and it doesn't surprise me at all that it came from a confederate state. Perhaps we'll need a national ruling after all. Either way, this ruling hinges on protected classes, which is a pretty shoddy argument. It relies on the idea that one must be a protected class in order to have equal rights. Again, there is no way that such a poorly supported decision can stand.
Click to expand...

Actually there was another single judge in a confederate state recently, which NP made a thread about (i swear this is deja vu), that ruled the same. He's just spamming f5 on fox news site hoping for any anti gay news and comes running here to post, blissfully ignoring every indication that SSM will be legal even in louisiana swamps within a year, thanks to scotus.

If i can shrug off the pro SSM rulings from dozens of states lately, because they're being appealed and scotus will decide it in the end, NP can do the same with these kind of "activist judge" rulings. He chooses not to because he's that damn spiteful.
 
chromium said:
Actually there was another single judge in a confederate state recently, which NP made a thread about (i swear this is deja vu), that ruled the same. He's just spamming f5 on fox news site hoping for any anti gay news and comes running here to post, blissfully ignoring every indication that SSM will be legal even in louisiana swamps within a year, thanks to scotus.

If i can shrug off the pro SSM rulings from dozens of states lately, because they're being appealed and scotus will decide it in the end, NP can do the same with these kind of "activist judge" rulings. He chooses not to because he's that damn spiteful.
Click to expand...

I will say this was a federal judge and the other was a state judge. I doubt it will make it through the appeals though.
 
chromium said:
If i can shrug off the pro SSM rulings from dozens of states lately, because they're being appealed and scotus will decide it in the end, NP can do the same with these kind of "activist judge" rulings. He chooses not to because he's that damn spiteful.
Click to expand...

I don't see why you'd need to shrug them off. They're absolutely correct about constitutional protections and equal rights.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't see why you'd need to shrug them off. They're absolutely correct about constitutional protections and equal rights.
Click to expand...

They are, but i didn't need them to affirm what i already knew to be just. Those rulings don't change anything for the couples in those states either. Every one of them is being held on appeal, and scotus will likely decide (probably utah's case) shortly after or even before those appeals are resolved.

I guess the best part of it is revenge in those states. However, it's not a coincidence we're seeing these rulings only after most voters changed their opinions, and that the two states where judges upheld the bans are 2/3 homophobic.

The true victory was convincing everyday people (outside LA and OK evidently) to back this cause, after they had rejected it. That alone enabled these court rulings.
 
The judge's argument was ridiculous. The "legitimate state interest" he identified was keeping children connected with their biological parents.

How, exactly, do same-sex marriage bans further this interest? If two dudes get married, how many children are removed from the home of their biological parents? Are gay couples kidnapping them?
 
Navy Pride said:
Good for La.

Louisiana ruling breaks pro-gay marriage streak
Click to expand...

It won't last through appeals.

The judge used children as an example saying that Gays are breaking up families. For this to stand, they would have to make it illegal for ANYONE gay or straight with a child from divorcing and marrying anyone else. It also doesn't take into consideration that some gays adopt, have children through surrogate mothers or invetril fertilization. This ruling was in fact JUST for gays and as such won't last appeals for that reason.

You saying Good on LA proves you are just against gays for the sake of it regardless of logic.
 
On the plus side, this ruling means SCOTUS will be forced to take on the issue.
 
Deuce said:
On the plus side, this ruling means SCOTUS will be forced to take on the issue.
Click to expand...

Stupid question: why would they be forced to take on any issue? They turn down thousands of petitions per year.
 
Cardinal said:
Stupid question: why would they be forced to take on any issue? They turn down thousands of petitions per year.
Click to expand...

Circuit split. This case gets appealed, the circuit court will inevitably overturn it, but that will get appealed to SCOTUS. They'll have two conflicting rulings in different circuits both being appealed. They'd have to either take the case and rule on it, or reject the appeal thereby upholding the 5th circuit's decision to overturn same-sex marriage bans. (they aren't going to have any procedural bull**** to punt on) This would be a defacto overturn of same sex marriage bans.

Not that this will matter in the end. Supreme Court is going to take the case either way, they only need four votes to grant cert. They should announce in October or November that they'll be hearing one (or more) of the cases, and will probably wait until the very last day of their next session because it's a big case and they just love doing that. So, end of June 2015, same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide. I'd put money on it.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Circuit split. This case gets appealed, the circuit court will inevitably overturn it, but that will get appealed to SCOTUS. They'll have two conflicting rulings in different circuits both being appealed. They'd have to either take the case and rule on it, or reject the appeal thereby upholding the 5th circuit's decision to overturn same-sex marriage bans. (they aren't going to have any procedural bull**** to punt on) This would be a defacto overturn of same sex marriage bans.
Click to expand...


If the 5th Circuit reverses the District Court Judge, that is inline with the 10th and 4th Circuits and is not a split Circuit situation. Only if the 5th upholds the ban does it generate a split with the 10th and 4th.



>>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
If the 5th Circuit reverses the District Court Judge, that is inline with the 10th and 4th Circuits and is not a split Circuit situation. Only if the 5th upholds the ban does it generate a split with the 10th and 4th.



>>>>>
Click to expand...

Right, but the 5th circuit's decision would most certainly be appealed by Lousiana. If SCOTUS then says "yes, this overturning was correct, appeal denied," that is effectively the same thing as ruling on the case.
 
Deuce said:
Right, but the 5th circuit's decision would most certainly be appealed by Lousiana. If SCOTUS then says "yes, this overturning was correct, appeal denied," that is effectively the same thing as ruling on the case.
Click to expand...


The decision is likely to be appealed no matter which side wins. Not disagreeing with that.

My post was that you incorrectly described what a "split" Circuit situation was. If the 5th overturns the Judge, then it is inline with the 10th and 4th - not a "split" in the Circuit Court decisions. The District Court Judges ruling is not a factor in determining if a "split" exists.


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
The decision is likely to be appealed no matter which side wins. Not disagreeing with that.

My post was that you incorrectly described what a "split" Circuit situation was. If the 5th overturns the Judge, then it is inline with the 10th and 4th - not a "split" in the Circuit Court decisions. The District Court Judges ruling is not a factor in determining if a "split" exists.


>>>>
Click to expand...

True enough. Not a real split. Unless the 5th circuit upholds the district judge's decision. Don't see how they could possibly do that. (although that circuit is deep, deep south!)

But as I edited in, they're going to take the case anyway so it doesn't matter in the end.
 
I haven't read Judge Feldman's decision and doubt that I will. But going by the brief descriptions of it I read, it makes sense. Apparently the party challenging Louisiana's marriage law made at least two claims.

The first, as best I can tell, was that homosexuals are a suspect class for Fourteenth Amendment equal protection purposes. In equal protection challenges, a law that makes a suspect classification will be reviewed under the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" standard. Under that standard, the law will be unconstitutional unless the government can show it was necessary to achieve an essential government purpose.

Laws make suspect classifications when they single out people for disparate treatment based on their race, national origin, or alienage. The challengers evidently argued that the court should declare homosexuals a new suspect class, and the judge declined to do that. That seems proper, because he would have had no legal precedent for doing that.

Absent any suspect classification, rational basis review would have applied, with the Louisiana law being presumed valid and the burden on the challenger to show it was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This standard is ordinarily pretty easy to meet, and it was met in this case.

The second claim failed because the judge recognized Louisiana's authority to define marriage by law. In U.S. v. Windsor last year, the Supreme Court held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. But the Court was careful to note that DOMA is a federal law, and (however disingenuously) it emphasized it was not questioning the states' traditional authority to define marriage. The judge was just recognizing that authority.

Section two of the DOMA is still in place--at least for now--and it gives states authority not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Art. IV, sec. 1, requires states to recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." But it also gives Congress power to make laws prescribing how those acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and what effect they have. And that's what section two of the DOMA does.
 
NIMBY said:
I didn't think you were against gays--which is it Navy?.

We already have stats from schools showing that kids from a 2-parent gay couple are more functional than
many subcategories of heterosexual couples.

I hope you live long enough to see a decade's worth of quantifiable data, as we now have on mixed-race couples .
Click to expand...

I am against changing the name of marriage......What part of that do you not understand?
 
Top Cat said:
Raise your hand if you are shocked that a southern state would do such a thing?
Click to expand...

Having been on other forums like these, I'm not shocked to see such an utterly silly comment. It shows you have no idea how federal district courts work. All the state of Louisiana did was to defend its right to define marriage--a right Justice Kennedy emphasized in his opinion in Windsor last year.
 
matchlight said:
Having been on other forums like these, I'm not shocked to see such an utterly silly comment. It shows you have no idea how federal district courts work. .
Click to expand...

Oh please. Spare me. That's just nonsense.
 
matchlight said:
I haven't read Judge Feldman's decision and doubt that I will. But going by the brief descriptions of it I read, it makes sense. Apparently the party challenging Louisiana's marriage law made at least two claims.

The first, as best I can tell, was that homosexuals are a suspect class for Fourteenth Amendment equal protection purposes. In equal protection challenges, a law that makes a suspect classification will be reviewed under the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" standard. Under that standard, the law will be unconstitutional unless the government can show it was necessary to achieve an essential government purpose.

Laws make suspect classifications when they single out people for disparate treatment based on their race, national origin, or alienage. The challengers evidently argued that the court should declare homosexuals a new suspect class, and the judge declined to do that. That seems proper, because he would have had no legal precedent for doing that.

Absent any suspect classification, rational basis review would have applied, with the Louisiana law being presumed valid and the burden on the challenger to show it was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This standard is ordinarily pretty easy to meet, and it was met in this case.

The second claim failed because the judge recognized Louisiana's authority to define marriage by law. In U.S. v. Windsor last year, the Supreme Court held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. But the Court was careful to note that DOMA is a federal law, and (however disingenuously) it emphasized it was not questioning the states' traditional authority to define marriage. The judge was just recognizing that authority.

Section two of the DOMA is still in place--at least for now--and it gives states authority not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Art. IV, sec. 1, requires states to recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." But it also gives Congress power to make laws prescribing how those acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and what effect they have. And that's what section two of the DOMA does.
Click to expand...

Excellent review, and after reading the entire decision my favorite part was this not satisfied by the plaintiffs:

the hopeful chorus that the tide is turning seems ardent and is anarguably popular, indeed, poignant, outcome (whether or notcredibly constitutionally driven). Perhaps, in the wake of today'sblurry notion of evolving understanding, the result is ordained. Perhaps in a new established point of view, marriage will bereduced to contract law, and, by contract, anyone will be able toclaim marriage. Perhaps that is the next frontier, the next phaseof some "evolving understanding of equality," where what ismarriage will be explored. And as plaintiffs vigorously remind,there have been embattled times when the federal judiciary properlyinserted itself to correct a wrong in our society. But that is anincomplete answer to today's social issue. When a federal court isobliged to confront a constitutional struggle over what ismarriage, a singularly pivotal issue, the consequence of outcomes,intended or otherwise, seems an equally compelling part of theequation. It seems unjust to ignore. And so, inconvenientquestions persist. For example, must the states permit orrecognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew?Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Mustmarriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgenderspouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All suchunions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring forone another, just like the plaintiffs.

19

Plaintiffs' counsel was unable to answer such kinds ofquestions; the only hesitant response given was that such unionswould result in "significant societal harms" that the states couldindeed regulate. But not same-gender unions. This Court ispowerless to be indifferent to the unknown and possibly imprudentconsequences of such a decision. A decision for which thereremains the arena of democratic debate. Free and open and probingdebate. Indeed, fractious debate. The Court remains drawn to theforceful and prophetic circumspection expressed by Justice Powell,and turns the spotlight again not only on his dissent in Furman v.Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 414 (1972), but also to Judge Kelly in hisdissent in the recent Tenth Circuit decision in Kitchen v. Herbert,No. 13-4178, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11935 (10

th

Cir. June 25, 2014). Their words lead this Court today and ought not be slighted:
Click to expand...

I agree..


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom